
Glass __L_L2„ 



Rnnk . G PA 



e: 



(^n 



G-s.^' 






Carpenter's Reply to Sumner. 



The Senate having under consideration the 
motion to postpone indefinitely the sundry civil 
expenses appropriation bill — 

Mr. CARPENTER said : 

Mr. President: The subject of sale of 
arms to France has been the occasion of sin- 
gular and eccentric proceedings in the course 
of this session. We were proceeding in a quiet 
and orderly way when the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Sumner] introduced a pream- 
ble and resolution which struck the Senate 
and the country like a clap of thunder from a 
clear sky. As that preamble and resolution 
are the foundation of all that has since oc- 
curred in relation to that subject, and because 
I desire to furnish to the historian the mate- 
rial necessary to place the real character of the 
Senator from Massachusetts before posterity, 
1 ask the Secretary to read them. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

Whereas it appears from a recent cable telegram 
that the committee of the French National Assem- 
bly on war contracts has adopted a resolution ask- 
ing the United States Government to furnish the 
result of inquiry into the conduct of American 
officials suspected of participating in the purchase 
of arms for the French Government during the war 
with Germany; and 

Whereas one Squires, agent of Messrs. Reming- 
ton <fe Sons, at New York, in a dispatch dated at New 
York Octobers, 1870, addressed to Samuel Reming- 
ton, at Tours, in France, near the government of 
national defense, uses the following language : '"We 
have the strongest influences working for us, which 
will use all their efforts to succeed;" and 

Whereas in a letter dated at New York, December 
13, 1871, addressed by Samuel Remington to Jules 
Le Cesne, president of the armament committee at 
Tours, in France, the following language is em- 
ployed: 

New York, December 13, 1870. 

Sie: I have the honur to inform you I have re- 
ceived your telegram of the 10th and 11th, ordering 
the number of batteries to be reduced in number to 
fltty, and intorming me of instructions to the consul 
regarding the last credit to hioi of 3,000,000 of francs. 

Although at the time of the receipt of the tele- 
gram I had bought the whole number, one hundred, 
and had paid the advance required, $200,000, the 
Government very willingly reduced the number to 

gj'ty^ ********* 

Regarding the purchase of Springfields, (trans- 
formed,) Allen's system, I am sorry to say the 
greatest number we may hope to get will not, I fear, 



exceed forty thousand. The Government hasnevef 
made but about seventy-five thousand all told, and 
forty thousand is the greatest number they think it 
prudent to spare. I may be able to procure, de- 
pending upon an exchange of our arms at some 
future time, for the number of breech-loading 
Springfields over and above forty thousand they are 
willing to let go now. 

This question of an exchange, with the very 
friendly feeling I find existing to aid France, I hope 
to be able to procure more. Cartridges for these 
forty thousand will in a great measure require to be 
made, as the Government have butabout three mil- 
lions on hand; but the Government has consented 
to allow the requisite number, four hundred for 
each gun, to be made, and the cartridge-works have 
had orders (given yesterday) to increase production 
to the full capacity of works. This question of 
making the cartridges at the Government works was 
a ditticultone to get over, but itis done. The price 
the Government will charge for the guns and car- 
tridges will be , or as near that as possible. 

Jules Le Cksne, esq.. 

President Cuinmianion of Armament, d~c. 

Whereas the Secretary of War, under date of Jan- 
uary 19, lS72, addressed the following communica- 
tion to the Secretary of State : 

War Department, 
Washington City. Junuary 10, 1872. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
of a note from you of the 4th instant, inclosing, by 
request of Mr. de Bellonnet, charge d'affaires of 
France, a copy of a letter from Mr. Remington to 
the president of the commission of armament at 
Tours, containing aseries of allegations in regard to 
the purchase of arms, &c. 

The first of these allegations which seem to require 
specific replies is, " cartridges for these forty thou- 
sand will in a great measure require to be made, as 
the Government have but about three million on 
hand; but the Government has consented to allow 
the requisite number, four hundred for each gun, to 
be made, and the cartridge- works have orders (given 
yesterday) to increase production to the full capa- 
city of the works. This question of making the car- 
tridges at the Government works was a difficult one 
to get over, but itis done." 

In reply to that allegation, I have to say that on 
the 13th of December, 1870, cartridges necessary to 
supply about two hundred rounds per gun to the 
model 1866 breech-loaders sold Thomas Richardson 
were ordered to be manufactured at the Frankford 
arsenal, and this numberof cartridges was necessary 
to effect the sale of the arms. The Messrs. Reming- 
ton ik Sons did not buy any arms or ammunition 
from this Department after about the middle of 
October, 1870, nor would any bid from them for such 
articles have been entertained by the United States 
subsequent to that date. 

To the second prominent allegation which is con- 
tained in the paper purporting to be a copy of a tele- 



gram from Squires to Remington, and wliieh is here- 
with returueil. I liave ttie lioiior to reply that this 
Department hn? no liiiowledge of any influence ex- 
erted in f;ivor of. or for the success of, any transac- 
tiou between the U'litcd States and Mr. Squires, for 
himself or Messrs. Remington & Sons. 
Very respectfully, your ubodient servnnt. 

WM. W.BELKNAP. 

Secretary of War. 
T.) the lion. Secretauy of State. 

Whereas it appears from these several communi- 
cations, not only that arms were sold, but that am- 
munition was manufactured in the workshops of 
the United Slates Government, and sold to one 
Tliomas Richardson, I he known attorney of Messrs. 
Remington & Sons, when the bids of the latter had 
been thrown out for the reason that they were the 
agents of the French Government ; and. 

Whereas it appears from the official report of the 
Secretary of War that in the years 1870 and 1871 the 
sale of ordnance stores reached the sum of S10,000,- 
000, from which, according to the report, only asmall 
sum was retained to meet the expenses of prejiaring 
other stores for sale, while the official report of the 
Secretary of the Treasury for the same year acknowl- 
edges the receipt of only $8,28l),131 70, showing a 
ditforenee of over SI. 70J, 000; and 

Whereas a comparison of the accounts rendered 
by the French Government for moneys expended by 
its agents in the purchase of arms from the United 
States and the accounts rendered by the Govern- 
ment of the United States for moneys received in 
the same transaction show a large difi'erence, which 
seems to have given rise to the suspicion abroad that 
United States officials have taken an undue part 
therein; and 

Whereas the good name of the American Govern- 
ment seems to be seriously compromised by these in- 
cidents, and a just regard to national honor, as well 
as to the interests of the Treasuiy, require that 
they should not be allowed to pass without the most 
thorough inquiry: Therefore, 

lieiolvd. That a select committee of seven be 
appointed to investigate all sales of ordnance stores 
made by the Government of the United States dur- 
ing the fiscal year ending the 30th ot June, A. D. 
\^1\, to a.'icertain the persons to whom such sales 
were made, the circumstances under which they 
were made, the sums respectively paid by said pur- 
chasers to the United States, and the disposition 
made of the proceeds of said sales; and that said 
committee also inquire and report whether any 
member of the Senate, or any other American citi- 
zen is or has been in communication or collusion 
with the Government or authorities of France, or 
with any agent or officer thereof, in reference to the 
.said matters; and that the committee have power 
to send for persons and papers ; and that the invest- 
igation be conducted in public. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, as- 
suming that the Senator from Massachusetts, 
in offering this preattible and resolution, was 
actuated by patriotic, not partisan motives, 
assuming that he was anxious only to preserve 
the honor of our country, and that he was free 
from any malicious impulse against the Admin- 
istration, he was justified in saying that the 
matter deserved the serious consideration of 
Congress. The preamble recited the passage 
of a resolution, by a committee of the French 
Assembly, casting suspicion upon the good 
faith of our Government; secondly, a sup- 
posed discrepancy between the War and Treas- 
nry Departments of over a million dollars ; 
from which he drew the presumption that 
there had been grossly corrupt jol)bing iti the 
sale of these arms, in whicli officers of our 
Government had participated, and that the 
sales, in view of the circumstances under 



which they were made, flagrantly violated the 
neutral duties of the United States pending 
the great war between France and Germany. 
And not a member of the Senate objected to 
an honest and thorough investigation touching 
this matter ; and the resolution, apart from 
the preamble, might have been passed in the 
morning hour ot any day, without debate. 
But many Senators were opposed to adopt- 
ing the preamble, which substantially declared 
guilt in advance of an invest igation. There- 
fore a debate took place. Indeed, the Senator 
from Massachusetts seemed unwilling to per- 
mit the passage of his resolution without a 
previous debate, which would eijable him, ia 
advance of investigation, to poison the public 
mind ; thus demonstrating that he had in view 
some end wholly different from an honest in- 
vestigation of the i'acts. Therefore more than 
two weeks of our session was exhausted and 
worse than wasted in a })olitical discussion, as 
a prelude to an investigation to which no Sen- 
ator objected. 

Having been challenged by the Senator 
from MassaiChuseits as incompetent to serve 
upon the committee, upon the assumption that 
1 was opposed to " the thing," I ask the Sec- 
retary to read an extract from the remarks 
made by me upon thai Senator's motion to 
postpone the consideration of an a[)propria- 
tiou bill and proceed to consider his preamble 
and resolution. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"As a friend of the Senator from Massachusetts, E 
am opposed to suspending him in this juncture of 
affairs, with the fuse lighted, which at this period, 
if he were to stop, would be very likely to burn his 
fingers. No, let the proceedings go on; let this 
investigation be had ; and 1 will vote for every 
measure, I will vote lor every proposition that can 
insure a thorough, speedy, stringent investigation 
of this subject, and whereverguilt is established and 
wrong i)roved, there let censure fall and punish- 
ment await the guilty." 

Mr. CARPENTER. This pledge I fully 
redeemed. 1 voted for every amendment 
which was offered to the resolution enlarging 
its scope and intensifying its purpose, and then 
voted for the resolution as it passed the Senate. 
After about two weeks' debate the Senator from 
Massachusetts had become ashamed of his pre- 
amble and attemj)ted to withdraw it ; to which 
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sueuman] objected 
upon the ground that alter the Senator from 
Massachusetts had wasted two weeks of the 
session upon a wholly useless debate, he ought 
not to be permitted to withdraw the preamble, 
and thus conceal the ground upon which the 
debate had proceeded. Afterwards, upon the 
29th of February, the vole was taken upon the 
adoption of the resolution, and I ask the Sec- 
retary to read the yeas and nays by which it 
was adopted. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

" Yeas— Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Blair, Boreman, 

Brownlow, Caldwell, Cameron, Carpenter, Casserly, 

Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Corbelt. Cragin, Davis 

of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Ferry of 



Michigan, Flanasnn, Goldthwaite, Harnilton of 
Texas, llamlii), llnrliin, Hill, Iliioiipock, Johnston, 
Kelioffg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Vermont, Mor- 
ton, Nye, Osborn, Poineroy, Pratt, Ilninspy, llit-e, 
Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Sher- 
man. Spencer, Sjirague. Stevenson. Stockton, Sum- 
ner, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, and Win- 
dom— 5l!. 

"Nays — Messrs. Cole, Edmunds, Gilbert, Lewis, 
and Wright— 5." 

Mr. CARPENTER. It will thus be seen 
that the Senate selected this comnaittee from 
those who had voted for the investigation ; and 
the Senators who voted against adopting the 
resolution did so because they had become 
satislied, during the debate, that the whole pro- 
ceeding was unfounded and malicious. 

On the *29tli of Februarj' the Senator from 
Massachusetts again attempted to withdraw 
his preamble, and on that occasion the Sena- 
tor from Ohio [Mr. Sheiuian] stated the true 
condition of the question before the Senate, 
and the reason why the Senator should not be 
permitted to withdraw it. I ask the Secretary 
to read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

"Mr. Sherman. At the very outset of the propo- 
sition I, with the assent of every Senator around 
me, openly proposed that the resolution should be 
passed nem. con., without debate, and everybody 
around me, even my friend on my right, [Mr. Cole,] 
who voted against it iinally because he thought the 
very groundwork of the investigation had been 
dissipated by the debate — even he was anxious 
originally to liave the resolution passed. This reso- 
lution might have been passed on the very first day 
it was offered by a unanimous vote of the Senate, 
and the Senator from Massachusetts as chairman of 
the committee appointed under it might have been 
at worli investigating the evidence upon which all 
these vague imputations are founded. 

"Sir, if this was an investigation for purity, for 
good order, for integrity, for honesty, as has been 
proclaimed so olten, why has the resolution not 
been passed for three weeks? Why has the resolution 
of investigation been debated here for three weeks 
when within that time all the testimony might have 
been taken in proper form, all the witnesses might 
have been examined, the archives of the War L)e- 
partmentand Treasury Department, and all these 
matter might have been explored from the beginning 
to the cud under the careful guidance of the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts himself? There was no 
other reason except that he and other Senators here 
desired a political debate at the expense of all the 
business interests of this country." 

Mr. CARPENTER. I have requested the 
Secretary to read from the speech of the Sen- 
ator from Ohio, because he objected to the 
withdrawal of tiie preamble by the Senator 
from Massachusetts. 'The same thing was 
stated over and over again by other Sena- 
tors; by the honorable Senator from Indiana 
[Mr. Morton] and by many others. The fact 
was patent that the resolution could have been 
passed at any lime without a moment's debate ; 
in ten minutes, says the Senator from Indiana. 
Every friend ot the Administration felt tliat 
after the resolution was offered, a thorough 
and searching investigation was an al)Solute 
nc^-essity, even in the interest of tlie Admit'.is- 
tration ; but two weeks of our precious time 
were wasted in a political debate, because the 
Senator from Massachusetts insisted that his 



preamble should be considered, although after 
all it is due to him to say that he became 
ashained of it and sought to withdraw it. On 
the 29th of February a motion to lay the pre- 
amble on the table was voted upon, atid I ask 
the Secretary to read the yeas and nays upon 
that question. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"Mr. Thouman. I want to know what question 
the Senate is to vote on. 

'■ The Vice PiiEsiDENT. To lay the preamble on 
the table, upon which the yeas and nays have been 
ordered. 

"The question being taken by yeas and nays, 
re.sulted— yeas 40, nay 1 ; as follows: 

"Yeas — Messrs. Boreman, Brownlow, Caldwell, 
Cameron, Carpenter. Cfisserly, Clayton, Conkling, 
Cragin, Davis of West Virginia, Flanagan. Freling- 
huysen, Gilbert, (Joldthwaite, Harlan, Hill, John- 
ston, Kellogg, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Vermont, 
Morton, Norwocid, Nye, Osborn, Pratt, Robenson. 
Schurz, Scott, Sherman, S|)encer, Spragnc, Steven- 
son, Sumner. Thurniiin, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, 
West, and Wright— 40. 

" Nay— Mr. Edmunds — 1." 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thus it will be seen, 
Mr. President, that the Senate with but one 
dissenting vote laid this preamble on the table, 
and that the Senator from Massachtisetts was 
among those who voted to consign it to that 
fate. Next tiie Senate elected a committee in 
pursuance of the resolution. That act of tlie 
Senate has been arraigned by the Senator from 
Massachusetts in a formal protest which he \ 
has spread upon the record, and which is to 
go down to posterity as his criticism upon and 
his condemnation of the Senate itself. He 
maintained that members of the committee 
were incompetent to sit upon it, upon the 
ground that they had expressed an opinion 
adverse to what he calls, I think very properly, 
"the thing;" for if there ever was anything 
since the world began that merited that con- 
temptuous appellation, it was this investiga- 
tion, whicli was a thing, a mere thing, a very 
contemptible thing. 

The record shows that every member of the 
committee was in favor of an investigation ; 
voted for every amendment which was offered 
to the resolution enlarging its scope, even an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Mis- 
souri [Mr. Schurz] in regard to the sale of 
muskets and the defenseless condition of the 
country in consequence ; voted for the amend- 
metit offered by the Senator from New York 
[Mr. Conkling] to investigate the conduct of 
Senators; voted for every amendment that 
was offered, and tlien for the resolution itself. 

Now, even within the parliamentary rule — 
which I understand to apply only to a case 
where the presiding officer of a legislative body 
is appointing a committee, that he shall com- 
mit the measure to its friends — this measure 
was committed to its friends, if by mea-sure is 
meant an honest investigation of the facts. 
Every member of the committee voted for the 
resolution and every atuendment to it, and 
had from first to last avowed himself in favor 
of the mostsearching investigation ; and when 



6 



the Senator from Massachusetts says this 
"thing" was not committed to its friends, he 
must mean that "the thing" wns a design to 
accomplish something altogether different from 
an iiouest invesiigation of ilie facts. 

Mr. President, ihe Senator's purpose is now 
revealed. We know what his motive was; we 
know it was not to investigate ihe facts. I'he 
facts were not wanted, else the resolution 
would have been passed at once and tlie facts 
obtained without delay; but it vvas desired to 
have a two weeks' debate, a deliberate, pre- 
meditated, malicious, assault. uj)on ilie Admin- 
istration, based upon nothing save the assump- 
tion of facts recited in the [ireamble; and the 
subsequent course of that Senator has abun- 
dantly demonstrated iliat " the thing'' was not 
an invesiigation, but an attempt to blacken 
this Administration without regard to truth or 
justice. 

Well, Jlr. President, notwithstanding the 
protest and challenge to the array which was 
made by the Senator from Massachusetts, de- 
nying that, the committee had any right to 
proceed, denjing that the chairman had any 
right to examine the witneSfCS, insisting that 
the examination should be made exclusively 
by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. ScHuiiz,] 
who was not a member of the committee; the 
comniiitee, notwithstanding that protest, pro- 
ceeded to obey the recorded command of the 
Senate, thinking that our duty was prescribed 
by the Senate rather than by the protest of 
the Senator from Massachusetts. 

As to the 6rst act of the committee — and I 
cite it to show that a fair investigation was 
in'ended by the committee — its chairman 
addiessed a letter to the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts, and another to the Senator from 
Missouri, requesting them to furnish the com- 
mittee with any information upon the subject 
which they [lossessed, and with the names 
of any witnesses that they de&ired to have 
examined. 

'J he Senator from Missouri returned a writ- 
ten answer to the committee, which is printed 
in the report, and the substance of which was 
that it would be useless for him to furnish 
names of witnesses unless he could be present 
to examine them. The committee thereupon 
invited the Senator from Missouri to attend 
its sessions, and informed him that he would 
be permitted to examine or cross-exaiuine 
every witness, and that every person in the 
Uiiited States tlial he desired to have exam- 
ined would be subpt'naed and submitted to his 
examination The Senator from Missouii ac- 
cepted this invitation, and performed the olKce 
of prosecutor. He was present at every ses- 
sion of the committee; he was present at the 
examination of every witness before the com- 
mittee. 1 believe not a question was put or 
answer given except in the presence of the 
Senator from Missouri. Numerous witnesses 
whose names he furnished to the committee 



were subpenaed and submitted to his exam- 
ination. Not a person in the United States 
that he desired to have examined was omit- 
ted. I'he examination was conducted by him- 
self as the report shows. It is all on record. 
There are his witnesses ; there are his ques- 
tions; there are the answers. 

Now, Mr. President, these being the facts, 
I say that when the Senator from Massachu- 
setts rose in his place and characterized this 
report as a whitewashing report, he- violated 
all parliamentary courtesy and disregarded 
recorded truth. 

When the committee made their report, the 
Senator from Massachusetts rose in his place 
and entered a protest against it, which pro- 
test was a mere condemnation of the Senate 
itself. Why, Mr. President, this committee 
did not elect itself; the Senate elected it; 
and after the election was made, one member 
of the coinmiitee rose in his place a/vd asked 
to be excused, and the Senate by a vote of 
yeas and nays refused to excuse him, and 
ordered the investigation to proceed by the 
committee as elected. And here in passing, 
and wiihout more fully discussing it, Itl me 
say — and I regret at this point the absence of 
the chairman of the committee — 1 understand 
this rule of parliamentary law to apply to the 
presiding officer of a body, and not to the body 
itself, ijut the Senate, in electing a committee 
for any end or purpose, is a law unto itself. 
What the Senate does, no Senator can ques- 
tion, unless some provision of the Constitution 
be violated. But when this report came in, the 
Senator froiu Massachusetts met it with a 
formal, insulting protest; and then on Thurs- 
day last, in the hurry of the business of the 
closing hours of the session, while we were all 
anx'ous to pass important bills, and while we 
were engaged in passing a bill to relieve the 
people of many millions of taxation, comes 
again the Senator from Massachusetts, and 
maintains that he and the Senator from Mis- 
souii had been assaulted by the report of the 
committee, and asks that the Senate suspend 
all its business and hear his personal defense. 
He said in substance — 1 do not pretend to quote 
his language — that the Senate could not deny 
him that act of justice. So the Senate gave 
way, and the Senator from Massachusetts, in a 
speech which covers nearly three pages of the 
Globe, said nothing whatever about the report, 
or of the sale of arms or in defense of liiinself, 
except the following, which I ask the Secretary 
to read : 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

" The Senator from Wiscvinsin is now in hi.s seat. 
Ilo is the author of the report. I think he can rep- 
resent it on the Qoor. 

"1 begin, sir, by callins attention to the report on 
the siilc of arms to France. 

" Thisreport isan extraordinary document, doubt- 
less one of the most extraordinary in piirliamentary 
history, but not more cxtraordinury than the com- 
mittee. Indued, from such a cominittoe, constituted 
in opcndetiauue of a first principle of parliameulary 



law, it would be natural to expect a report defying 
first principles in everythiug. At least three of the 
comuiilteo were disqualilied from sitting, as much as 
a juror who has given his opinion before trial, and 
one of those was the chairman. According to par- 
liamentary law, they should hare risen in the Senate 
and declined to serve ; but they went on the com- 
mittee, and the t)resent report is their verdict. 

"I present this report as unworthy of the Sen- 
ate in every ret pect ; wantiujj in ordinary fairness 
Hnbecoming in tone, unjust to Senators wlio, had 
deemed it theirduty to move the inquiry, and ridic- 
ulous in its attempt to expound international law. 
Its character is already lixed beyond recall. So far 
as remembered, it will be known as the " white- 
washing report." For the present I forbear to say 
more on this head, assured that the Senator from 
Missouri |Mr. Schuez] will do it ample justice." 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, this is 
the language of a man who abhors egotism, 
who condemns personal pretensions, and who 
is not of a quarrelsome turn of mind. This is 
the close reasoning, the candid and respectful 
argument of a Senator opposed to a report 
signed by five Senators of this body, in the 
discharge of a duty imposed upon them by a 
resolution of the Senate. 'Jhis is the language 
of a docile Christian, who. when smitten upon 
one cheek, " turns the other also ;" who, 
when he is " reviled," reviles not again. Of 
this report, brought here in obedience to the 
command of the Senate, the Senator, after 
kindly announcing to the Senate that the 
rei^ort was written by myself, adds that it 
is '' unworlh}' of the Senate in every respect, 
wanting in ordinary fairness, unbecoming in 
tone, unjust to Senators who had deemed 
it their duty to move the inquiry, and ridicu- 
lous iu its attempt to expound international 
law." 

Why, Mr. President, after such a towering 
panegyric from the Senator, 1 should be utterly 
wanting in all the reciprocal offices of courtesy 
if I did not pay him an occasional compliment 
in the course of my remarks to-day, [laugh- 
ter;] and I regret that the Senator, who was in 
his seat at the commencement of my remarks, 
has withdrawn, so that I may not pay him so 
much attention as 1 should were he jjresent 
to enjoy it. I shall speak presently in detail 
of the remarks made by the Senator from 
Massachusetts. 

His speech was followed by a speech of the 
Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Schurz,] criticis- 
ing the report of the committee ; and I ^hall 
first give attention to that. 

The Senator from Missouri was more than 
usually happy in oratory upon that occasion. 
He is a philosopher beyond all question, and 
lie comes very strictly within the Scotchman's 
definition of a metaphysician, as "he talks 
about what nobody can understand, and what 
arpparently he does not understand himself. " 
[Laughter.] As 1 listened to that fearful out- 
pouring of eastern philosophy removed far be- 
yond the range of analysis, incomprehensible 
to common minds, gloomy to the apprehen- 
sion, I desi^aired answering its points, because, 
if it had any points, they were merged in the 
Senator's gorgeous rhetoric. [J^aughter.] I 



waited anxiously to see the speech in the Globe. 
It has not yet appeared. Mere rhetoric, lofty 
declamation, brilliant and eloquent discourse, 
if not founded upon truth, can never incite 
a revolution in this country ; and the Senator 
from Missouri ought to consider that fact, 
because a revolution is the thing he seems 
determined to accomplish. 

1 did, however, infer from the remarks of 
the Senator from Missouri that he was not ia 
favor of the report of the committee. [Laugh- 
ter.] I think 1 do not misrepresent him whea 
I say he did not approve it. I do not recollect 
that any single branch of it met his very 
decided approbation. Not having his speech 
before me, I am compelled to confine myself 
to an examination of the report, and thus to 
its fortification, if examination will lead to 
that end. 

When the committee entered upon the per- 
formance of its duty, the first difficulty it met 
was iu its attempt to obtain the testimony of 
the Senator from Massachusetts. He had in- 
troduced the preamble and the resolution. He 
was the author of and respousiljle for the 
proceeding, and the committee thought itself 
obliged to call him, that he might communi- 
cate his knowledge and let the committee know 
its sources ; that he might let the committee 
know the 4'aets upon which he had taken the 
responsibility to brand high officers of the Gov- 
ernment and cast suspicion and dishonor upon 
our national character. When tlse Senator 
was requested to attend before the committee, 
he folded about him his senatorial toga and 
delivered us a written protest, which recited 
the fact that he, the Senator from Massachu- 
setts, could not condescend to pay any such 
committee any such attention. 1 read the first 
paragraph of this protest, which is instructive 
when we consider that it was from a man 
utterly devoid of egotism: 

" Personally, I object to no examination; willingly 
would I submit to the most searching scrutiny, not 
only in the present case, but in all my public life. 
There is not an act, letter, or conversatio.':, at any 
time, which I would save from investigation." 

Happy Senator from Massachusetts ! Never 
before, since the lowly Nazarene walked be- 
neath the bending palms of Palestine, has 
any being on earth been able truthfully to say 
there is no act, no letter, no conversation, no 
idle word of mine that I do not recall with 
satisfaction. This protest must at least be 
regarded as a frank " admission " by the Sen- 
ator that he is a sinless man. 

But, Mr. President, although the Senator 
in this protest declared that he must consult 
his senatorial duty, which forbade his appear- 
ance before the committee, he changed his 
mind when the committee issued to him the 
" subpena," clothed with the auihoriiy of 
law, and denouncing the penalty of imprison- 
ment for a refusal to obey it; the statute read- 
ing as follows: 

"That any person summoned as a witness by the 



8 



authority of either House of Congress, to give testi- 
mony, or to produce papers, upon any matter before 
either House, or before any cnuimittee of either 
House ol Congress, who shall willlully make default, 
or who, luipearing, shall refuse to iinswer any ques- 
tion pertinent to the matter of inquiry in consider- 
atiun before the House or coinuiltiee by which he 
shall be examined, shall, in addition to the pains 
and penalties now cxistiner, be liable to indii'tmcnt 
as and for a misdemeanor in any court of the United 
States having jurisdiction thereof, and, on convic- 
tion, shall piiy a fine not exceeding Sl.OuO, and 
sufi'er imprisonment in the common jail not less 
than one month nor more than twelve months." 

When the subpeiia went out to the great 
Senator ileiiotinciiig this penuliy, and when the 
Senator saw the [nison-door opening to receive 
him, lie reconsidered his senatorial duty, he low- 
ered his banner, and submitted himself to the 
law of the land. 1 commend the Senator for 
that act of dignified obedience ; the world 
owes him a debt of gratitude. Free institu- 
tions were rescued from a perilous doubt, for 
at the lime it was questionable wiiether that 
supreme authority to which all must bow, was 
personified in the law of the land, or in the 
Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator 
kindly resolved the quesiioii in favor of the 
law, and submitted himself to its authority. 
It would have been more gratifying, perhaps, 
bad he done this without protest; yet we owe 
him a deep debt of gratitude that he did it 
even with a protest. The laws should be 
thankful for small favors when dealing with 
the Senator from Massachusetts. He protested 
agaitist obeying the law ; he declared that he 
was not bound to obey the law ; yet as matter 
of grace and iavor to the law, and disliking 
much to enter the portals of the District jail, 
he waived his "privilege," yielded to the sub- 
peiia. and submitting to the hiw, came for- 
ward and look his place upon the stand. 

The committee thought the crisis of its des- 
tiny had passed when tlie Senator from Massa- 
cbuselts thus submitted, and it was then sup- 
posed that the Senator would reveal all that he 
knew about this subji^ct ; but therein the ex- 
pectation of the committee was not realized. 
The Senatiir troni Massachusetts refused to 
reveal to the committee the sources of his in- 
formation, saying that his informants were 
" eminent men " who had communicated wiih 
him in confidence; but he declined to give 
their names. Who they were, or what was the 
foundaiion of their knowledge, whether it was 
mere suspicion and rumor or actual knowl 
edge, the committee could not ascertain, 
because, to that extent, the Sena or from Mas- 
sachusetts would not submit to the law. He 
infortiied the committee that he had handed 
over the letters from these eminent men to the 
Senator from Missouri, with authority to use 
them in such a manner as he saw fit, l)ut not 
to disclose the writers' names. Tlie Senator 
froiu Missouri, therefore, who acted as pjose- 
cuior before the committee, had all the in- 
formation which tlie Senator from Massachu- 
setts liad, but which the committee did not 
buve, and could not obtain from these Sen- 



ators. So far as the Senator from Missouri 
desired, in view of the information which he 
and the Senator from Massachusetts possessed, 
to subpena witnesses, they were subpenaed, 
and their examination was taken. Whether 
there was anything in those communications 
which suggested a counter pi oof, the commit- 
tee could not ascertain. I'liey were informed 
of nothing in regard to these letters, but only 
had the benefit of the examination of sucb 
witnesses as the Senator from Missouri, after 
considering the letters, deemed it prudent to 
call before the cominiitee. 

So much, Mr. President, for the history of 
the committee and its proceedings. Now for 
a few moments let me refer. to the report 
itself. The first question upoti the report dis- 
cussed by the Senator from Miss(juri was the 
question of the power to sell ttiese arms under 
the acts of Congress. Two statutes have been 
referred to, the first of which is the statute of 
March 23, 1825, which reads as follows : 

"That the President of the United States be. and 
he is hereby, authorized to cause to be sold any ord- 
nance, arms, ammunition, or other stores, orsubsist- 
ence or medical supplies, which, upon proper in- 
spection or survey, shall apiiear to be damaged or 
otherwise unsuitable for the public service, when- 
ever, in his opinion, the sale of such unserviceable 
stores will be advantageous to the public service. 

"Sec. 2." 

And the second section must be deemed as 
giving character and construction to the first — 

" That the inspection or survey of the unservice- 
able stores sh;ill be mnde by an inspector general, or 
such other otiicer or officers as the Secretary of War 
may appoint for that purpose; anM tlie sales shall 
be made under such rules and regulations as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary of War." 

This act has been in forcesince 1825. Various 
regulations have been made in the War Depart- 
ment for its execution wliich are important in 
connection with this subject, and 1 will ask the 
Secretary to read from the ordnance regula- 
tions of 1834, pages 21 and 22, the passages 
which I have marked. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"84. Whenever ordnance or ordnance stores are 
reported unserviceable, they will bo examined by 
an inspector general, or some otiicr officer specially 
appointed by the Secret;iry of VViiifor that purpose, 
who will note on the inventory such as ho condemns 
as wholly unserviceable, such as heconsiders repair- 
able, and such as he deems serviceable, lie will 
recoiaiuend the stores condemned by him either to 
bo broken up at the arsenal, depot, or military posts, 
or to be sold, as may be deemed most advantageous 
to the public service. But should it a.p|)ear to the 
inspector that the ordnance or ordnance stores con- 
demned are of too little value to cover the expense 
of sale or breaking up, he will recommend them to 
be dropped from the return as useless. Sucb arms 
and stores as the inspector may consider repairable 
he will direct either to be repaired at the arsenal, 
depot, or military post; or to be transi)orted to the 
nearcr-t or most convenient arsenal or depot of con- 
struction and repiiir. The inventory, (See form No. 
9,) with the remarks and opinion of the inspector, 
shall bouiiide in duplicate; one copy to be left with 
the officer having charge of the ordnance and ord- 
nance stores, and the other to be forwarded to the 
chief of the ordnance depart'Jient tor the further 
action of the President of the United States. 

'"85. All articles coudcmned aud ordered for sale 



9 



by the President of the United S'ates shall be 
disposed ol .'it public auctidii. under the su|jerin- 
tendence of such officers as may be designated tor 
that purpose liy the chief of the ordnance depart- 
ment, due previous public noticein t he newspapers 
beins given of the sale. An authorized auctioneer 
will he einr>Ioyed, and the sale conducted in con- 
formity with the establishetl usiikcs of the place 
where made. 

"8G. An otRcer directing sales of unserviceable 
ordnance stores will cause the articles to be offered 
in such lots as he may tliink will command the best 
prices; an I he is auiiiorizcd to bid in or suspei d the 
sale of any article when, in his opinion, t hey will 
command better prices at private sale. No article 
will he sold at private sale until after it shall have 
been offered al auction, nur then at a price less than 
that offered at public Sale. 

"87. All sales shall brt for cash. The auctioneer 
will make certified bills of sale of the property 
and deliver them to ttie superintending officer, to 
whom the money shall be paid on delivery of the 
property. All expenses of sale will be |iaid from its 
proceeds. Tlie net proceeds will be deposited in the 
bank in which the lunds of the arsenal, depot, or 
post, are directed to be deposited, immediately 
thereafter by the commanding officer, to the credit 
of the Trea-urer of tlie United Slates. 

"88. Ceriificates of the dejiosiis of the money, the 
auctioneer's certified account of sales in detail, and 
the vouchers for the expense of the 'ale, shall be 
forwarded to the chief of the ordnance depart ment, 
unconnected with quarterly accounts, whence, after 
examination and record, they will be transmitted to 
the proper auditor (or settlement." 

Mr. CAKPENTEPt. I ask the Secretary to 
read also irum the Army Regulations of 1841, 
page 1G8. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

"918. Should an officer or other agent of the ord- 
nance department charged with ordnance and ord- 
nance stores fail to render the piescribed returns 
thereof within a reasonable time after the termina- 
tion of a quarter, a settlement shall be made of his 
accounts at the freasury, and the money-value of 
the supplies with whicti he stands charged shall be 
reported against him for collection. The delin- 
quency will also furnish matter of military accu- 
sation, at the discretion of the proper authorities." 

Mr. CARPENTER. I will ask the Secre- 
tary to read also from the Army Regulaiioiis 
of 1857. page 119. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"927. When military stores or other Army sup- 
plies are reported to the War Department as unsuit- 
able to the service, a proper inspection or survey 
ot them shall be made by an inspector general or 
such suitable otBcer or officers as the Secretary of 
War may appoint for that purpose. Separate in- 
ventories of the stores, according to the disposition 
to be made of them, shall accompany the inspection 
report: as of articles to be repaired, to be broken 
up, to be sold, of no use or value, and to be dropped, 
&c. The inspection report and inventories shall 
show the exact condition ol the different articles. 

" 928. Military stores and other Army supplies 
found unsuitable to the public service, alter ii spec- 
tion by an in-'pector general, or such special inspec- 
tion as may have been direcieil in the case, and 
ordered for sale, shall be sold for cash atauciion, on 
due public notice, and in such market as the public 
interest may require. The officer making the sale 
will bid in and suspend the sale when, in his opin- 
ion, better prices may be got. E-Xpiaises of the sale 
will be paid Irom its proceeds. The auctioneer's 
certified account of the sales in detail, and the 
vouchers tor the expenses of the sale, will be 
reported to the chief of the department to which 
the property belonged. The net proceeds will be 
applied as the Secretary of War may direct." 

Mr. CARPENTER. I also ask the Secre- 



tary to read from the Army Regulations of 
]8()3, pages 152, 153, and 154, the marked 
passages. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

"1023. An officer commanding a (lpf)artment, or 
an army in the field, may give orders, on the report 
of the authorized inspectors, to s<'ll. destroy, or make 
such other disriosition of any condemned property 
as the case may require, ordnance and ordnance 
stores alone excepied, for which the orders of the 
War Department must always be taken. But if the 
property be of very considerable value, and there 
should be reason to suppose that it could be advan- 
tageously applied or disposed of elsewhere than 
within his command, he will refer the matter to the 
chief of the staff department to which it belongs 
for the orders of the War Department. No other 
persons than those above designated, or tlie Gen- 
eral-in-Chief, will order the final disposition of con- 
demned property, saving only in the case of horses 
which should be killeil at ouce to preventcontagion, 
and of provisions or other stores which are rapidly 
deteriorating, when the immediate commander tnay 
have to act pertoree. Inventories of condemned 
property will be made in triidicate, one to be re- 
tained by the person accountable, one to accompany 
his accounts, and one to be forwarded through the 
department or other superior headquarters to the 
chief of the staff department to which the property 
belongs. Separate inventories must be made ot the 
articles to be repaired, of those to be broken up, 
those to be sold, to be dropped," .kc. 

"1032. Military stores and other Army supplies 
regular'y condemned, and ordered for sale, nhall be 
sold for cash at auction, on due public notice, and 
in such market as the public interest may require. 
The officer making the sale will bid in and suspend 
the sale when, in his opinion, better prices may be 
got. Expenses ot the sale will be paid from its pro- 
ceeds. The auctioneer's certified account ot tha 
sales in detail, and the vouchers for the expensesof 
the sale, will be reported to the chief of the depart- 
ment to which the property belonged. The net pro- 
ceeds will be applied as the Secretary of War may 
direct." 

xMr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, these 
are the regulations prescribed by the VV'ar 
Department for the execution of the act of 
1825. I liave requested them to be read and 
to be put upon the record, to show the under- 
sianditig ot the ordtiance department and of 
the Secretary of War, and of all the othcers 
charged with executing that act, that it related 
to unserviceable, in the sense of useless, artns. 
It was that class of arms and munitions which 
wete next to worthless. The regulations in 
one place direct the officer, if they are not 
worth transportation to some arsenal, (for old 
iron, of course,) todestroy thetn and drop them 
from the record. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator allow me 
to call his attention to a fact? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pome- 
rot in the cliair.) Does the Senator fmm 
Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Missouri'? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I will yield to the 
Senator frotn Missouri in regard to any ques- 
tion of law, and this is a question of law. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I tnerely want to call the 
attention of the Senator to the fact that as the 
regulation was read, the permission to destroy 
referred to property, not arms and ordiianCQ 
stores, as 1 understood it. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Very well. They were 



10 



regulations adopted under this act of Congress. 
I atn not now discussing, because that is for- 
eign to the question before us, all the details 
cf those orders and regulations. I introduce 
them, as I said before, to show the understand- 
ing of the department in regard to the con- 
struction of the act of 1825 ; that it related 
only to useless stores or property, whichever 
the case maybe. Now, these regulations were 
all in force. The last one which has been 
read was prescribed in 18G3. In 14 Statutes- 
al-Large, page 338, is " an act to increase and 
fix the military peace establishment of the 
United States," approved July 28, 1866, the 
thirty-seventh section of which recognizes the 
then existing regulations, and continues them 
with the force of law. 

Now we come to a different state of things 
and to a different subject. Prior to the close 
of the rebellion, the Government had no large 
supplies of arms or munitions of war to be 
disposed of, and the act of 1825, and the reg- 
ulations under it, contemplated a disposition 
of property useless for military purposes. But 
at the close of the rebellion the Government 
found itself in possession of large quantities 
cf arms and munitions of war; arms which 
of course, in process of time, would become 
nearly or quite useless. Subjected to rust and 
decay, and to all the decrease in value which 
must always attend that kind of property, it 
was deemed advisable to sell, and Congress, 
by t-he act of 1868, provided — 

" That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, 
authorized " — 

And not only authorized, for that was done 
by the act of 1825 — 
" and directed"— 

Thus making the act mandatory upon the 
Secretary of War — 

" to cause to be sold, after oiTer at public sale on 
thirty days' notice, in such manner and at such 
times and places as he may deem most advantage- 
ous/to the public interest, the old cannon, arms, 
anclii»ther ordnance stores now in possession of the 
W.~i(f Department, which are damaged or otherwise 
unsoitiible for the United States military ser- 
vice," <fec. 

Thus you see, Mr. President, the scope of 
this act was much broader than the act of 
1825. It was not the useless arms and stores 
that were to be disposed of, as under the 
former act, but all which were unsuitable. 
And who was made the judge of what was 
unsuitable ? The principle of law is as well 
established as it is that assumpsit, at common 
law, lies on a promissory note, that where an 
authority is conferred upon any officer to do a 
certoin thing in a certain ev«nt or contingsncj^L 
he is the exclusive judge of the happening of j 
that event or contingency. According toJ.his | 
familiar principle, which no lawyer will ques- 
tion, when this act of 1868 was passed it was 
mandatory upon the Secretary of War ; it did 
not leave him the option of acting or not, but 
made it his duty to act. He was bound to 



dispose of all the arms which, in his judgment, 
were unsuitable to be kept. That was a very 
different thing from requiring him to dispose 
of all useless arms. Here was a large supply 
on hand, beyond any present or anticipated 
want of the nation; arms which were being 
continually superseded by new inventions, and 
by improvements in the manufacture of arms ; 
and to keep a supply on hand not needed then, 
and probably not to be needed in Qlly years, 
until they should become utterly worthless, 
would be to keep, in the very language of that 
act, a supply of unsuitable arms ; and the 
Secretary of War was charged with the execu- 
tion of this act in his discretion and judgment, 
and no lawyer can put upon it any other con- 
struction. 

Now, Mr. President, the great point to be 
considered here, and to which I call the atten- 
tion of the Senate, is that these acis are not, 
in a lawyer's phrase, in pari materia; they 
do not relate to the same subject. When two 
acts are in pari materia the last act, so far as 
it is inconsistent with the former, repeals the 
former act ; and of two acts which are incon- 
sistent in their provisions, if one does not 
repeal the other, it is because they do not 
relate to the same subject. The honorable 
Senator from Missouri, on this branch of the 
subject, referred the Senate to the opinion of 
Judge Advocate General Holt, at page 725 of 
this report. Before referring to that, let me 
read what the committee say about ikese tv/o 
acts : 

"The different circumstances under which these 
acts were passed, the difference in the subjects to 
which they relate, talien in connection witli the fact 
that they were to be executed by different oifioera 
and in different ways, render it clear, in the opinion 
of your committee, that they are not inpnri materia, 
and should not be construed togelher so as to incor- 
porate into one the provisions of the other. By the 
first act the President, in his discretion, was author- 
ized to sell arms and stores which, ' upon proper in- 
spection or survey,' should appear to bo 'damaged 
or otherwise unsuitable for the public service.' 
What was meant by the phrase ' damaged or other- 
wise unsuitable for the public service' is fixed by 
the second section, which provides 'that the in- 
spection or survey of the unserviceii/jle utoren ahuU bo 
made by an inspector general, &c.' From this it is 
clear that only unserviceable arms were to be sold, 
and the inspection was a condemnation. Indeed, 
the Government had no others to sell." 

The Senator from Missouri the other even- 
ing read this paragraph down to a certain 
point, and then laid the book down, and con- 
tinuing in the same tone of voice, so that I 
inferred he was reading from the report, added 
the sentence: "then of course the last act 
repealed the former." 

"■ Mr. SCHURZ. No; the Senator is mis-, 
taken. I did not say anything of the kind. 
The Senator misimderstood me. 

Mr. CARPENTER. 1 do not think I can 
be mistaken. I was cool and listening, and 
the Senator was under the excitemetit of 
speaking. Therefore, I think I am higher 
authority on that point. 



11 



Mr. SCEIURZ. I may have said this: 
" tlieii tlie coinrnittee virtually asserts that 
the last act lepeals ihe ibriiifr." 

Mr. CAia'ENTEK. Very well. That he 
did not say, because I was surprised at the 
time, iiiidersiaiidmg from the tone ot his voice 
that lie was reading troni the re[)()rt, "the last 
act refiealed ihe former;" and I sent fur a 
copy of the report to see if such a blunder had 
been commuted, and was relieved to tind ihai 
ii. had not been. Ai. all events no such thing 
is in the report, and whether assertion or de- 
duciion makes no differtnce. The Senator 
underslood, as he now states, that the ground 
taken by the committee was that the l.isi act 
had repealed the tirst, and for the purpose of 
showing that to be a mistake, he relerred us 
to the opinion of Judge Advocate General 
Holt at page 725, holding that th«- act of 1825 
was in iorce ai. the dale of his opinion, which 
was subsequent to the date of the act of 18G8. 
If the Stnamr flora Missouri had been a lawyer, 
or il he lijid consulied a lawyer who had ever 
earned SlUUO by the practice of his profes 
sion, he would liave been informed that this 
opinion ol Holt is ct)inplete and full authority 
for the doctrine of the report. Why is il that 
the act of 1825 is not repealed by the act of 
18G8? 'I'hey are inconsistent in iheir provis- 
ions. 1 h'- act of 1825 confers upon the Pres- 
ident a di>creiionar> power to sell, to be exer- 
cised upon a survey and inspection, or in other 
words, a condeinnalion of the arms, upon such 
terms as he may deem reasonable. The act 
of 1868 confers power upon another officer, 
the ftecietary of War, and not only author- 
izes him to sell useless arms, but commands 
him. not upon inspecion and survey, but upon 
thirty d.^yn' advertising, to sell the un-uiialjle 
arms of the (iovernment. Why dul Holt say 
the act of 1825 was in force at the date of liis 
opinion, and that an inspection was necessary 
under that act? Every lawyer will tell the 
Senator that, it is because the acts are not in 
pari materia. The act of 1825 related to use- 
less stores and propeny ; the act of 18G8 re- 
lated to a different class of property, which, 
though not useless within the sense of the act. 
of 1825, was nevertheless unsuitable, in the 
Bense ot undesirable. Therefore the opinion 
of Holt conHrms the doctrine of the report. 

Mr. SCHUKZ. Will the Senator permit me 
to interrupt liim on this point of law/ 

Mr. CAllPEN rEIl. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHUKZ. I assert that the matter 
treated of by Judge Holt is ex;icily the matter 
that is treated by the statute of 18G8, and I 
will prove it by the record. Here is the cor- 
respondence that took place : 

Washington, October 5, 1869. 
Republic of Liberia, J. J. Roberts, minister 

Mr. CALlPENrELl. I decline to yield for 
the reading ot books and documents. 1 will 
hear the Senator's point, but not an argument. 

Mr. SCHUKZ. 1 merely wanted to make 



the point ijy reading the evidence. But if the 
Senator prefers not to hear it now I will make 
the {loint afterward. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Lawyers understand 
exHCtly theothce ot an interruption, and never 
object to it, when madi; in a luwyer-like way. 
An imerrtifiiion of a lawyer at the bar is a 
common occurrence, but it is always confined 
to asking a question, or making a suggestion 
merely tor the purpose of calling an opponent's 
mind to a certain po.nt, not for the purpose 
of injecting a reply into his firguinent. No 
court would permit that, and lawyers never 
attempt it. 1 know the Senator from Missouri 
does not design to do ihat, and 1 only object 
because it wouid break in on the line of my 
remarks, and he of course will have an oppor- 
tunity to reply. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I merely wanted to call 
the Senator's mind to certain facts. 

Mr. CARPENTER. My mind is directed 
to them. It is not a great mind, and it will 
not produce a great result when directed to 
that point, but whatever strength there is in it 
is at this moment engaged upon the precise 
point in issue between the Senator and myself, 
which is. whv did not the act of 1868 repeal 
ihe act of 1825? And I assert that when Holt 
says, subsequent to the act of 1868, the act of 
1825 is still in force, although he did not state 
the full process by which his mind had reached 
that conclusion, yet he did, in legal effect, 
declare that ihese acts are not in pari mate- 
ria; and this is the doctrine maintained by 
the report. 

Mr. Pre.-ident, after this act of 1868 was 
passed, it became the duty of the Secretary 
of War to put a construction upon it. Every 
officer of the Government called upon to per- 
form any duty under an act of Congress must 
first of all inquire, what duty is to be per- 
tormed? In other words, he must construe 
the act itself. That is an indispensable pre- 
requisite to the execution of a law. If its lan- 
guage is so plain that it does not require any 
construction, then of course its iutenr is very 
easily ascertained. Jf there is any ambiguity, 
the intent of the law must be arrived at by con- 
struction. How often has the Supreme Court 
of the United States said, in deciding cases 
involving land titles, that the consiruciion 
given to an act of Congress relating to the 
public lands by the Commissioner of the Gen- 
eral Land Office, a mere bureau officer charged 
wiih the execution of the law, was entitled to 
be respected by the Sufireme Court of the Li^ni- 
led States— -not conclusive upon them, but 
i entitled to their respectful consideration. 

General Sciiotield was the first Secretary of 
War who was called upon to act under the law 
of 18G8, and he gave to it this construc'.Ion, 
that the advertisement of the property might 
be made in this way: take, for instance, of 
cannon, of muskets, of cartridges, or any ether 
of the classes of stores which the Government 



12 



had to dispose of, and from time to time adver- 
tise lots of each class, and then within a rea- 
sonable time after the advertisement, if they 
were not purchased at the public sale adver- 
tised, the Department might sell at private 
sale. Tbat was the course adopted by Mr. 
Secretary Schofield, and it had become a set- 
tled rule of proceeding in the Department 
before the sales in question were made. 

The committee say that in their opinion that 
was not a strictly proper construction of the 
act. I have no doubt, as a lawyer, that a strict 
comjjliance with the letter of that act required 
that no arms or stores or property of any kind 
should be sold which had not first been adver- 
tised ; and yet there is no doubt that a com- 
pliance with the letter of the act would have 
defeated its spirit and object. Why was the 
Secretary of War required to advertise this 
property for sale? Manifestly to protect the 
interests of the Government and to prevent a 
sacrifit'O at private sale. After this act passed 
in 1808, the Secretary of War might have 
advertised every ariicle in the possession of 
the Government, from the Swamp Angel at 
Charleston down to the smallest pocket pistol 
in the armory, for sale at a certain time; and if 
there had been no bidders, as probably there 
would not have been, then from that time on 
for lorty years he might have continued in the 
daily sale of these arms and stores at private 
sale ; and yet it is apparetil that such literal 
compliance with the law would have defeated 
its spirit and object, because the advertisement 
in 18(38 v«)iild have been no notice to the pub- 
lic in 1870. 1871, 1872, and 1873, and so on. 

So that the course which was adopted by the 
War Department, while it did not follow the 
letter of the act, did effect the very purpose 
of the act. It gave notice from time to time 
to the public of the classes of stores and arms 
which the Government had for sale, and the 
sales which were made gave information to 
the Secretary of War what those arms and 
stores would bring : so that the very object 
of the act of Congress was answered by the 
construction put upon it by the Secretary of 
War, better than by what, in my judgment, is 
the strict construction of the act. 

The committee made use of the phrase that 
this construction of the War Department was 
rather a soldier's than a lawyer's construction ; 
and tl>e Senator from Missouri soared at that 
remark like a sky rocket. He held me up to 
the indignation of forty millions of people, 
(for he never speaks merely to the Senate,) 
and taunted me with being an advocate of a 
soldier's construction of the law. He notified 
the people that our doom was near at hand 
when a committee of this body eould make a 
deliberate report that a soldier's construction 
of an act, right or wrong, was better than a 
lawyer's construction of the act, right or wrong. 
We were then in a political atmosphere which 
indicated certain doom to our liberties and 



our national existence ; an atmosphere ap- 
parently very offensive to the nostrils of the 
Senator from Missouri who has so recently re- 
turned from the pure etherof Cincinnati, where 
not an office-seeker wentand not one who went 
will hold an office for forty years to come. 
[Laughter.] 

I was not only ridiculed as recreant to the 
duty of a Senator, but I was held up to the 
indignation of my brethren of the bar. The 
Senator said in substance, he thought this was 
the first time a lawyer had ever degraded the 
profession by exalting the construction of a 
soldier over the construction of the lawyer. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I did not say that. 

Mr. CARPENTER, You did not say those 
words, but in the language of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, you said that "thing." My 
preference for the construction put upon this 
act by the War Department does not rest upon 
the fact that it was the construction of a sol- 
dier; it rests upon the fact that it was a con- 
struction which protected the rights of the 
Government — a construction by which the will 
of Congress was executed better than it would 
have been under the lawyer's construction. 

Why, Mr. President, we pass laws here every 
day imposing duties upon soldiers, duties upon 
the Commander-in-Chief of our Army and upon 
the ordnance department, upon the War De- 
partment, filled, exercised, and occupied by 
officers of the Army. They must construe 
those laws. It is not supposed by Congress, 
nor is it the fact, that those men are all tech- 
nical and accurate lawyers ; but. it is supposed 
that they are honest men, and that they will 
carry out and execute the spirit of the act and 
protect the interests of the Gowrninent. 

I am sorry that the Senator's speech is not 
printed. I went home that uight alter listen- 
ing to it and my sleep was troul)led by the 
ringing of that knell over our liberties because 
a soldier's construction of that act had been 
approved. We were told that we were in th6 
last days of our existence, our doom was upon 
us, and that when it was allowed to a soldier 
to depart from the law, and when his departure 
from it by an honest mistake of its construc- 
tion was not censured by a committee, our 
last hours were drawing nigh. 

Mr. President, no free Government was 
ever overthrown by an honest blunder. Read 
the history of the world. Free institutions 
and republican governments have not gone 
under by honest mistakes and blunders. They 
have been overthrown by artful intriguing 
rascals, who have gained the public ear and 
the popular favor by pretension to greater 
purity than that of their fellows; artful in- 
triguers who have undermined the foundations 
of free institutions by pretending to defend 
and maintain them. Why, sir, the liberties 
of Rome were not stricken down by the mili- 
tary usurpations of CtBsar ; they were finally 
overcome by the artful intrigues of Augustus 



13 



Caesar, who pretended to be the champion of 
the Roman constitution, and who, observing 
the forms of a republican government, estab- 
lished, in fact, an imperial despotisrn. 

The Senator from Missouri is exceedingly 
hard on the soldier. He is exceedingly hard 
on anybody that has served his country during 
the war, as it seems to me. But, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I apprehend no danger such as seems to 
be feared by him. My fear of the perpetuity 
of our institutions does not arise from blun- 
ders committed by a bluff", honest soldier. If 
we ever go under, we are to go under by the 
instrumentality and manipulation of a set of 
designing, artful men who stand out as the 
models and champions of Republicanism, 
purer than their associates, self-appointed 
leaders to liberty and national grandeur. 

The next point, Mr. President, considered 
in the report, is whether the sale of these arms 
was made under such circumstances as to 
amount to a violation of our neutral duties 
pending the war between France and Germany. 
The close, compact, protracted, patient, and 
overwhelming argument of the Senator from 
Massachusetts on that point I have already 
referred to. As that Senator is understood to 
be a champion of the law of nations, as he was 
once, I understand, a teacher of that law, and 
as he has assumed in this Senate for ten years 
to silence every man's private opinion on the 
subject by his ipse dixit, let me read again his 
great argument upon the pointof international 
law maintained by the committee : 

"I present this report as unworthy of the Senate 
in every respect, wanting in ordinary fairness, un- 
becoming in tone, unjust to Senators who had deemed 
it their duty to move the inquiry, and ridlcuLout in 
i>H attempt to expound international laxo." 

'•Ridiculous" is all that the Senator from 
Massachusetts condescends to say in reply to 
the report of the committee. It is fortunate 
that an adjective does not amount to an argu- 
ment. If it did, I should never stand up to 
oppose the Senator from Massachusetts nor 
the Senator from Missouri, no matter what 
they tried to establish, for such a command 
of adjectives I never knew to belong to any 
two men before. 

What; is the doctrine of this report upon this 
suV'jpct which is pronounced " ridiculous, " 
and which is worthy of no other answer? The 
report says: 

"4. Were the sales made under sue* circumstances 
as to violate the obligations of the United States as 
•a neutral Power pending tho war between France 
and Germany ? 

" Thissubjectinvolves two questions, one in regard 
to the law applicable to the transactions, or the 
question of what the Government might do under 
such circumstances, and the other a question of 
fact — what was done, <&c. 

" Congress having, by the act of 1868, directed the 
Secretary of War to dispose of these arms and stores, 
and the Government being engaged in such sales 
prior to the war between Franco and Germany, had 
aright to continue the same during the war, and 
might, iu the city of Washington, have sold and 
delivered any amount of such stores lo Frederick 



William or Louis Napoleon in person, without vio- 
lating the obligations of neutrality, provided such 
sales were made in good faith, not for the purpose 
of influencing the strife, but in execution of the law- 
ful purpose of tho Government to sell its surphits 
arms and stores." 

That is the doctrine of the committee, dis- 
posed of by the Senator from Massachusetta 
with one word, "ridiculous;" disposed of by 
the Senator from Missouri almost as sum- 
marily, although, not to bean imitator, he used 
the word "atrocious," I think, or "abomin- 
able;" I am not certain which. The precise 
point between us is, whether a nation at peace 
and in the pursuit of a perfectly lawful busi- 
ness, as, for instance, the manufacture of 
arras, or war-ships, or cartridges, or anything 
else, is compelled to suspend its business 
because two nations somewhere on the globe 
engage in a war. That is the single question. 
The Senator answers this question in the 
affirmative; the report in the nej;ative. Now, 
at the expense of being a little tedious, I shall 
present the authorities which I have found, 
since this report was made on this subject, 
and I will ask the Secretary first to read the 
extracts from the report which are marked 
and which are taken from the work of Vat- 
tel on international law. The Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri, 
while they fell with oyerwhelming array of 
adjectives upon the doctrine enunciated by 
the committee, took good care not lo say one 
disrespectful word ot Vattel, whose book sus- 
tains every point made by the committee. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

First, no act on the part of a nation which falls 
within the exercise of her rights and is done solely 
with a view to her own good, without partiality, 
without a design of favoring one Power to the prtju- 
diee of another — no act of that kind, I say, can in 
general be considered as contrary to neutrality ; nor 
does it become such, except on particular occasions, 
when it cannot t^ke place without injury to one of 
the parties, who has then a particular right to ap- 
pose it. Thus the besieger has a right to prohibit 
access to the place of the besieged, (see section one 
hundred and seventeen in the sequel.) E.xcept in 
cases of this nature shall the quarrels of others de- 
prive me of the free exercise of my rights in the 
pursuit of measures which I judge advantageous to 
my people? Therefore, when it is the custom of a 
nation, for the purpose of employing and training 
her subjects, to permit levies of troops in favor of a 
particular Power ' " 

Mr. CARPENTER. I call attention to 
that phraseology, " when it is the custom of 
a nation," not the subjects of a nation, but a 
nation. 

The Chief Clerk continued the reading as 
follows : 

" ' Therefore, when it is the custom of a nation, for 
the purpose of employing and training her sub- 
jects, to permit levies of troops iu favor of a par- 
ticular Power to whom she thinks proper to intrust 
them, the enemy of that Power cannot look upon 
such permissions as acts of hostility unless they are 
given with a view to the invasion of his territories 
or the support of an odious and evidently unjust 
cause, lie cannot even demand, as matter of right, 
that the like favor be granted to him, because that 
natiou may have reasons for refusing him which 



14 



do not hold good with regard to his adversary ; and 
it belongs to that nation alnne to judge of what best 
suits her circumstances. The Swit/.ers, as we have 
already observed, gr.int levies of troops to whom 
they please; and no Power has hitherto thought fit 
to quarrel with them on that head. It must, bow- 
ever, be owned'" * * * * "'that if 
those levies were considerable and constituted the 
principal strength of my enemy, while, without any 
substantial reason being alleged, I were absolutely 
refused all levies whatever, I sliould have just cause 
to consider that nation as leagued with my enemy; 
and in this case the care of my own safety would 
authorize me to treat her as such. 

■' ' The case is the same with respect to money which 
a nation may have been accustomed to lend out at 
interest. If the sovereign, or his subjects, lend 
money to my enemy on that footing, and refuse it 
to me because they have not the same confidence in 
me, this is no breach of neutrality. They lodge their 
property where they think it safest. If such prefer- 
ence be not founded on good reasons' — 

" Here he comes back to the precise point — 

" ' I may impute it to ill will against me, or to a 
predilection for my enemy. Yet if I should make 
it a pretense for declaring war, both the true prin- 
ciples of the law of nations and the general custom 
happily established in Europe would join in con- 
demning me. While it appears that this nation 
lends out her money purely for the sake of gaining 
an interest upon it, she is at liberty to dispose of it 
according to her own discretion, and I have no right 
to comphiin. But if the loan were evidently granted 
for the purpose of enabling an enemy to attack me, 
this would be concurring in the war against me. 

" ' If the troops above alluded to were furnished to 
my enemy by tiie State herself, and at her own ex- 
pense, or the money in like manner lent by the State, 
without interest, it would no longer be a doubtful 
question whether such assistance were incompatible 
with neutrality. 

"■ Further, it may bo affirmed on the same prin- 
oiples that if a nation trades in arms, timber tor ship- 
building, vessels, and warlike stores, I cannot take 
it amiss that she sells such things to my enemy, pro- 
vided she docs not refuse to sell them to me also at 
a reasonable price. She carries on her trade without 
any design to injure me; and by continuing in the 
same manner as if I were not engaged in war, she 
gives me no just cause of complaint, 

■"In what I have said above, it is supposed that my 
enemy goes himself to a neutral country to make his 
purchases.' " 

Mr. CARPENTER. I want to call the 
attention of the Senate to that precise point. 
ThiCre is a broad distinction in all the author 
ities between trade in a neutral State by the 
belligerent and the contraband -of- war trade 
which is carried on from neutral territory to 
the i)oits of the belligerent, and the precise 
distinction is staled clearly by the author 
there. 

The Chief Clerk continued reading as fol- 
lows : 

" ' In what I have said above, it is supposed that 
my enemy goes himself to a neutral country to make 
his purchases. Let us now discuss another case — 
that of neutral nations resorting to my enemy's 
country for commercial purposes. It is certain, as 
they have no part in my quarrel, they are under no 
obligation to renounce their commerce for the sake 
of avoiding to supply my enemy with the means of 
carrying on the war against me. Should they atfect 
to refuse selling me a single article, while at the 
same time they take pains to convey an abundant 
gui>i>ly to my enemy, with an evident intention to 
favor him, such partial conduct would exclude them 
from the neutrality they enjoyed. But if they only 
continue their customary trade, they do not thereby 
declare themselves against any interest; they only 
exercise a right which they are under no obligation 
of sacrificing to me.'" 



Mr. CARPENTER. At the suggestion of 
my honorable colleague I wish here to call the 
attention of the Senate to the distinction be- 
tween the law of nations on the subject of 
neutrality and the municipal law of a j)arlicu- 
lar nation passed in the interest of its own 
policy of neutrality. Our laws, passed upon 
this subject and the subsequent act passed by 
Great Britain in imitation of them, were mu- 
nicipal laws, and made necessary because the 
law of nations did not cover the same ground ; 
yet in all our discussions in regard to the 
neutral obligations of our nation there is a 
complete confusion as to our duty under the 
law of nations and the duty of our citizens 
under our own municipal statutes. That dis- 
tinction should always be borne in mind. 
Neither Prussia nor France nor any foreign 
nation can complain of us that our municipal 
law has not been enforced, provided the law 
of nations has been respected. Prussia, for 
instance, has no interest in our statute, no 
right to insist upon it. If we performed toward 
her all the obligations that the law of nations 
imposed upon a neutral, it is non6 of her busi- 
ness or concern that our municipal statute is 
trampled under foot by our own people every 
day of the year. 

I have caused these extracts from Vattel to 
be read which lay down the doctrine adopted 
by the report. Indeed, after putting that par- 
agraph into the report, I should have been 
subject to the charge of plagiarism if I had 
not quoted from the authority that sustained 
it. The paragraphs which are assailed here 
as "ridiculous" and " atrocious" are merely 
a condensation of the doctrine of Vattel on 
this subject. 

This subject is not entirely new in this 
country. I refer now to the first volume of 
American State Papers, the volume on foreign 
relations, page 649, in the letter of Timothy 
Pickering, then Secretary of State, to the 
minister of France, who had made complaint 
of this country that the British were permitted 
to buy horses here for military service. A 
general discussion of the subject took place 
between the French minister and the Secre- 
tary of State. The letter which I refer to is 
dated May 15, 1796, page 649, first volume 
Slate Papers, in regard to foreign relations. 
In reply to the French minister's communica- 
tion the Secretary of Slate says : 

"Referring to Vattel, book three, chapter seven, 
(the object of which entire chapter is to delineate 
the rights and duties of neutrality) your first re- 
mark is, that the one hundred and thirteenth sec- 
tion, which you quoted, has bo relation to the one 
hundred and tenth cited by me. But permit me to 
observe, that it would be anovel mode of interpret- 
ing an author to take up a single paragraph and 
detach it from all his other remarks and reasonings 
in the same chapter, and on the same subject. 
Doubtless (as the same author says elsewhere) "we 
ought to consider the whole discourse together, in 
order perfectly to conceive the sense of it.' (Book 
two, chapter seventeen, section two hundred and 
eighty-five.) In both the sectionscited (one hundred 
aud ton and one hundred and thirteen.)"— 



15 



These are the sections which I have caused 
to be read, and this is the construction which 
our Secretary of State put u^on them — 

"la both the sections cited (one hundred and ten 
and one hundred and thirteen) the right of neutrals 
to trade in articles contraband of war ia clearly 
established" — 

Mark here, for this is the precise distinc- 
tion between what a nation may do, as Vattel 
expresses it, on its own territory, and what its 
subjects may do beyond its boundaries — 

" In both the sections cited (one hundred and ten 
and one hundred and thirteen) the right of neutrals 
to trade in articles contraband of war is clearly 
established; in the first, by selling to the warring 
Powers" — 

Not to somebody to export directly to the 
warring Power — 

"who come to the neutral country to buy them; 
in the second, by the neutral subjects or citizens 
carrying them to the countries of the Powers at war, 
and there selling them." 

Mr. SCHURZ. Who writes that? 

Mr. CARPENTER. That was by a Sec- 
retary of State of the United States in 1796, 
Timothy Pickering. Not only does Vattel in 
language too plain to be misunderstood lay 
down this distinction, but here we find the same 
doctrine insisted upon, enforced, and main-' 
tained by our own State Department in 1796. 
He then refers to the work of Galliani on this 
subject and says, commenting upon book one 
and quoting from it: 

" Much greater is the number of those who be- 
lieved that every belligerent Power possesses essen- 
tially the right of forbidding neutral Powers to sell 
arms and warlike stores to its enemy; and that this 
is a full right, that is, a right of strict justice. They 
do not distinguish the circumstance, when the neu- 
tral Powers carry on trade with one of the belliger- 
ents, and supply it with arms and warlike stores, 
and when, with perfectimpartiality, they trade with 
both. In the first ease, the preference of one party 
is apparent, and thenceforward the slighted and 
neglected party begins to possess a right in regard 
of the neutral State, for friendship with it is at an 
end ; but as in the other case friendship does not 
appear to have ceased, there is not yetto be discov- 
ered any reason to act iuimically on this account 
toward a friend. 

" And, in truth, this reflection has le<l many writ- 
ers to conclude that neutral Powers cannot be for- 
bidden to exercise a free trade, even in contraband, 
as long as they exercise it in an impartial manner 
with both belligerent parties, or are willing to do so. 
I, too, can not say that they decide very unjustly." 

Again, the Secretary of State, after citing 
these authorities, sums up as follows: 

" Then follow what the author states as the true 
positions of this matter, some of which you have 
cited: , . , . ,, 

■■ 1. When a belligerent nation desires a friendly 
neutral nation to carry no contraband to its enemy, 
it must formally disclose its wish, silence importing 
a satisfaction in the natural state of things," 

I regret exceedingly that ray strength will 
not permit me to pursue this letter further, but 
it draws precisely the distinction, and bases 
it upon these authorities, which is maintained 
by this report, the distinction between our own 
nation inside its own territory and the rights 
of our citizens who go beyond our jurisdic- 



tion with privilege to trade, subject to all the 
exigencies of war, with one of the belligerent 
Powers. 

All that the law of nations requires of any 
nation in the particular of neutrality, as the 
authors all sum it up, is impartiality ; what 
you do to one you shall do to another. Some 
books have said that within the meaning of 
this rule you caunot send an equal amount of 
troops to one nation and to the other, because 
that is a particular in which it is impossible to 
be impartial between the two. That is made 
the exception to the rule ; but where the nation 
throws open its shops, its markets, to both 
belligerents for the purpose of trade, whether 
it be ships of war, or cannon, or cartridges, or 
other munitions for military service, neither 
has a right to complain. It is only, according 
to these authorities, when the neutral Power 
furnishes one belligerent and refuses to furnish 
the other that there is any cause of com- 
plaint ; and here this author lays it down that 
if either of the belligerent Powers wishes to 
restrain the neutral Power from that, it ia the 
duty of that nation first to give notice to the 
neutral and request hira not to make such 
sales. 

Apply this doctrine to the case in hand as 
we all know it, what was the position of Ger- 
many here? These sales were being made 
openly by the Government, under advertise- 
ment, as everybody knew. The German min- 
ister here, understanding that these sales were 
going on, as it is said, informed his Govern- 
ment of that fact, asked for instructions on 
the matter, was informed by the German chan- 
cellor that there was no violation of law in it, 
further informed that the German nation did not 
wish to buy any arms here ; no objection was 
made, no protest, not the slightest opposition 
offered to the sale of these arms on the part of 
the Government, although it was alleged that 
sales were to agents of France. The case as 
made by the German minister to his own Gov- 
ernment assumes one of the points in dispute 
here, but he put the case upon the ground 
that the sales were being made to agents of 
France, as I shall have occasion to show 
hereafter. 

During the war between France and Prussia 
the workshops of England were open to both 
belligerents. During the rebellion in this 
country both North and South obtained arms 
in England, manufactured in the armories of 
England. Both parties being recognized as 
belligerents were allowed to trade in cannon, 
in muskets, in ammunition, in all the supplies 
of war ; and nobody, that I know of, has com- 
plainjwi that, conceding the belligerency of both 
parties, there was any violation of neutrality 
in those sales. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit 
me to put a question to him? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Does he state that daring 



16 



the pendency of the war between France and 
Germany the English Government manufac- 
tured for and sold arms to either of the 
belligerents ? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I have not stated that. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I understood the Senator 
to say that the English armory was manufac- 
turing arms for sale at that time ? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I said no such thing. 

Mr. SCUURZ. Then I misunderstood the 
Senator. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, as a 
part of this discussion, and an important propo- 
sition to be considered in connection with this 
subject and in connection with the distinction 
which I am making between what a neutral 
Government may do inside of its own territory 
and what its subjects may do abroad, let me 
remark that the whole subject of contraband 
of war relates to maritime law. There is no 
such thing as contraband of war inside of neu- 
tral territory ; there cannot be. Munitions of 
war only become contraband of war when 
they become the subject of foreign commerce. 
In the sixth Massachusetts Reports, in a well- 
considered opinion of Chief Justice Parsons, 
than whom no sounder or clearer or more ac- 
curate lawyer ever sat on an American bench 
or the bench of any other country, we find the 
definition of contraband of war. I quote from 
page 114 of the sixth volume of Massachusetts 
Reports : 

" Goods contraband of war are of two descrip- 
tions: munitions of war, the property of a neutral, 
bound from a neutral port to the territory of either 
of the belligerents, after the existence of the war is 
known; and every species of neutral goods bound 
from a neutral port to a port belonging to either of 
the Powers at war, and known to be blockaded by 
the other Power. Theprinciple, therefore, on which 
a belligerent will capture and condemn as prize the 
goods of a neutral bound to a port known by him to 
be blockaded arises from the consideration that 
all such goods are contraband of war." 

And therefore these arms, these muskets, 
these cartridges, all the munitions which have 
been referred to, while they were upon our 
own territory were not contraband of war, 
and the whole doctrine, authorities, and decis- 
ions relating to that subject did not apply to 
them until they passed beyond the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the United States and became 
the subject of foreign commerce. To show 
that the fact, if it were conceded, that these 
sales were made to known and authorized 
agents of France would not have violated 
our neutral obligations, I read from a letter 
of Mr. Jefferson found in the third volume of 
Jefferson's Works, page 558: 

"The purchase of arms and military accouter- 
ments by an agent of the French Government, in 
this country, with an intent to export them to 
France, is the subject of another of the memorials. 
Of this fact wo are equally uninformed as^ of the 
former. Our citizens have been always free to make, 
▼ end, and export arms." 

He is speaking here of a sale by the citizens 
and not by the Government, because that was 



the case before him. The difference between 
the writers on this subject and the Senator 
from Missouri is that they talk to the case and 
never deliver general essays on other subjects 
not connected with the matter in hand. 

" It is the constant ocuupation and livelihood of 
some of them. To suppress their callings, the only 
means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war 
exists in foreign and distant countries in which we 
have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It 
would bo hard in principle, and impossible in pr.ic- 
tice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the 
rights of those at peace, docs not require from them 
such an internal derangement in their occupations. 
It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced 
in the President's proclamation, that of confiscation 
of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the 
hands of any of the belligerent Powers on their way 
to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our 
citizens are warned that they will be abandoned; 
and that even private contraventions may work no 
inequality between the parties at war, the benefits 
of them will be left equally free and open to all." 

Upon this general subject I refer also to the 
second volume of WiUlman's International 
Law, at page 211, and I ask the Secretary to 
read the passage I have marked. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

" Goods going to a neutral port cannot come under 
the description of contraband, inasmuch as all goods 
with a neutral destination are equally lawful. So 
it was held that a cargo could not come under the 
•description of contraband which was innocently 
shipped on board a vessel which sailed in bona fide 
ignorance of war. Nor can any Question of contra- 
band arise as to goods sold by neutrals in their own 
country and not conveyed in neutral vessels. A 
neutral may lawfully sell in his own country to a 
belligerent arms, ammunition, and other articles 
which would be contraband on board a neutral 
vessel destined to a hostile port." 

Mr. CARPENTEit. I will now refer to 
De Burgh upon international law. 

Mr. SCHURZ. 1 would ask the Senator, 
in order to obtain all the information I can 
from him, how the quotation just read applies 
to the case? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I will have this read, 
and then I will try to show the Senator, I 
cannot do everything at once. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"Commerce on the part of a neutral with a bel- 
ligerent country constitutes no otfense against the 
law oi nations. Even where armed vessels or muni- 
tions of war are the subjects of sale, the neutral 
shipper of such articles is not, in the absence of spe- 
cific treaty engagements, an offender against his 
own sovereign, or liable to be punished by the 
municipal laws of his own country. The transac- 
tion is a commercial adventure, which no nation is 
bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the per- 
sons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. 
To this extent it is unlawful, as itsubjects the prop- 
erty to seizure by theother belligerents. But a neu- 
tral nation is under no obligation whatever to inter- 
fere to prevent its subjects trading in articles of 
contraband with the subjects of a belligerent, pro- 
vided that in so doing its conduct is marked by that 
impartiality which should distinguish the transac- 
tions of a neutral country in its relations with bel- 
ligerent States. This is the language of all writers 
of authority on this subject, and the point has been 
explicitly confirmed by judicial decisions. 

" A neutral nation, says Dr. Twiss, is not bound 
to prohibit its subjects Irom trading in any article 
whatsoever with merchants who frequent its ports, 
and who may be the subjects of belligerent Powers ; 
for the sovereignty of a neutral nation within its 



17 



own territory is as absolute with regard to nations 
■which are at war with each other as in regard to na- 
tions which maintain relations of peace with each 
other. The duty of a neutral nation, as such, toward 
belligerent nations is comprised in one word, impar- 
tiality. It is not the duty ot a neutral nation, as such, 
to undertake to prevent merchants who frequent its 
ports from carrying out of itsjurisdiction the articles 
which they may liave purchased on the ground that 
those articles may bedestined to the usesof a belli- 
gerent Power; it is the business of every belligerent 
Power to enforce its rights of war, if it sees fit, on 
the high seas, or within the enemy's territory. A 
neutral nation may indeed bind itself by treaty en- 
gagements with a belligerent nation not to allow any 
mer'^hants to purchase within its jurisdiction certain 
articles if they are to be carried to the ports of the 
adverse belligerent; but the observance of such 
treaty engagements wi'l beiiiconsistcntwith neutral- 
ity unless the neutral nation should apply the same 
prohibition equally to all merchants intending to 
carry such article to the ports of either belligerent. 
It is not, however, the i)ractice of natioi.s to under- 
take to prohibit by tlieir territorial laws merchants 
from purchasing in their ports those articles which a 
belligerent Power may confiscate to its own uses, 
jure belli, if it finds them on the high seas in the 
course of transport to the ports of the enemy, much 
less is it the practice of neutral nations to confiscate 
such articlesatter purchase while they are within its 
jurisdiction. A belligerent alone has any right, j'lo-e 
belli, to take possejsiou of that which is the property 
of another person. 

"To a similar efifect is the opinion of Kluber, who 
observed, on the received custom of European na- 
tions, to allow the suijjects of a b,elligerent to pur- 
chase from a neutral Power articles which serve 
for immediate use in war, provided that the pur- 
chase is made in the neutral country by the belliger- 
ents and reported by them. And a modern French 
writeron public law, M. Ortolan, in maintaining the 
same doctrine, remarked that to allow the subjects 
of either belligerent to come and purchase articles 
in a neutral market does not constitute a violation 
of neutrality; for a neutral nation cannot be re- 
sponsible for the ultimate uses to which such arti- 
cles may be applied, nor is it bound to know for 
whom they are bought, or what destination is re- 
served for them. Tlie judgments of the Supreme 
Court and the opinion ot the Attorney General of 
the United States have assisted to uphold and even 
to extend this rule, as to the operation of which 
Chancellor Kent remarks that it was successfully 
shown by the United States, in opposition to the 
contention of the French Government in 1796, that 
neutralsmay lawfully sell at home to a belligerent 
purchaser or carry themselves to the belligerent 
Powers contraband articles subject to the right of 
seizure in trunsiUc, a doctrine which had received 
the express recognition of the judicial authorities 
in America." — Be Burgh. 

Mr. CARPENTER. As I remarked before, 
this is not a question in regard to contraband 
of war; yet the authorities mingle the two 
subjects so that it is impossible to consult 
them upon the one subject without also read- 
ing what they say upon the other. But the 
precise point which I am trying here to estab- 
lish — the distinc'ion between what the nation 
as such may do in its own territory and what 
it may perhaps not do beyond its territory, 
but its subjects may — is sustained in clear lan- 
guarge by this authority which has just been 
read. " The duty of a neutral nation as such ;" 
that is, as a nation "toward belligerent 
nations" is comprised in one word — impar- 
tiality. It is not the duty of a neutral nation, as 
such, to undertake to prevent merchants who 
frequents its ports from carrying out of its 
jurisdiction the articles which they may have 



purchased, on the ground that those articles 
may be destined to the use of a belligerent 
Power." Taking that as a correct statement 
of the doctrine — and here I may say that this 
authority refers to the decisiotis of our own 
Supreme Court, and the decisions in Massa- 
chusetts, and the writings of various element- 
ary writers, on pages 117, 118, and 119, which 
have been read — assuming this to be the 
true doctrine, let me come now to ask — and 
every piiiiciple of international law must have 
some reason to rest upon, or it is no princi- 
ple — if a nation may (and this authority says 
it may) allow the merchatits or agents of 
France to come into this country and buy 
munitions of war for use by the French nation, 
what reason is there in saying that the Gov- 
ernment itself, if it be a dealer in such com- 
modities, may not in its own territory do what 
it may authorize its merchants to do and pro- 
tect them in doing? 

The distinction which is attempted to be 
made by the Senators from Massachusetts and 
Missouri rests upon the tnere accident of lan- 
guage. The cases wiiich have been discussed 
have been cases of contraband of war, such 
being the subji-cts under discussion by prize 
courts; and most of the writers, treating of 
cases where the citizens of a neutral have 
trafficked with the belligerent nation or the 
subjects of a belligerent nation, the language 
of these courts and writers relates to such 
traffic ; but when you rise above the mere tech- 
nicalities of the question, when you seek for 
a principle upon which a nation may stand, 
and which it may vindicate with the extreme 
argument of war, and which need only to be 
right and sound in reason, I defy any man to 
show why within our own limits the nation may 
not as well sell arms to a French agent as to 
authorize me to do so and protect me in doing 
so, because as a citizen of the United Slates 
exercising lawful trade it is the duty of my 
Government to protect me while lam so doing, 
and while I confine my operations to the ter- 
ritory of its sovereignty. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Will the Senator permit 
me to ask a question in order to understand 
him correctly V 

Mr. CARPENTER. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Did he say that the case 
which he quoted from and the other quotations 
he made referred to trade carried on by private 
citizens, by subjects of a neutral nation, as 
commercial ventures; or did he quote any 
case in which the Government made such sales 
directly? 

Mr. CARPENTER. The honorable Sen- 
ator from Missouri is not a dull man, and he is 
entirely capable of comprehending what is said 
in ordinary plainness of language ; and I must 
therefore suppose that I am unusually stupid 
to-day if I cannot make hiin conipreheiid what 
I said upon that subject without repeating it. 
What I said was this, that in principle whea 



you Jeftthe cases, when you departed from the 

techmcal.ty of the decisions whiU must Xays 
be confined to the particular facts before the 
court, and rose to princii,les upon which the 
nation m,ght stand and which they mi'ht 
defend by force, because founded in reasSn 
Tne'dTtr ^™"^^ 'T '^^ <^-'-ction Tain.' 
I i^IpJ^ r r ^ '^'*'. ^.^^ ""'■ Government and 
a sale made by our citizens, both sales beins 
made within our territory ^ 

I then said that the language of the books 
was confaned to contraband commerce, because 
the cases which had been treated of beloTged 
to that class; but that in principle no dis inc 
tion could be maintained between a sale of 
arms made by the United States upon their 

rercha^ntl"?.-" '''' "^'^^ "^^ ^ ^™«'^'a" 
merchant within our own country. The au- 
thorities clearly establish that an American 
manufacturer mi^htin this country ifave Txe 
cuted an order from the Governm' nt of Ger- 
many or France for cannon, arms, or other 
munitions of war, pending the war between 
matter of T"'"'% ^•^"' ^''^^ I maintain as 

tbeUnitedbtates may authorize their merchants 
to do, and protect them in doing, may be done 
by the United States themselv! . What dif 

the'nrutraTr'"''^''^'^^ ^^''«--^' ^^^^h ' 
me neutral Government sells its surplus arms 

to an agent of the other belligerent, o firs To 

t'haTTe rin'M'l'""^'^' ^-"'^3' knowing 
that he will sell them to such agent? And 

Drotfo L"^^ sel toHsown merchants and 
protect them in selling within the territory of 

io^,"' wf ' ;° '^'' f-^'-"f °^ ^ •^el'igerent'^na- 
t on. What may lawfully be done hy indirec- 
t on may lawfully be done by direct and open 

tseTf'' sr '" It r.''' «^' '- GoveiimS 
tself. Suppose the United States, looking to 
he pohcy of keeping i„ operation all the 

munition "if''' ^'^ T'-^'^^'^'^-S arms and 
munitions of war, the training of skilled 

immbe^'of^ '"'^ "" ^'^1' «''°^'^ establish a 
St to ?,f ^^'"'^^^'^s ^"d manufactories sulfi- 
Cient to turn out a vast supply of munitions 
of war beyond what was requi,4d for ou own 
use with the intention of selling the surplus 
to foreign nations. Such a proceeding would 
be entirely lawful on the part of this Govern 
ment under the international code. Now the 

may So'^itr '•.' ^-"^"^"^ '^^^^ what a TatSn 
worW i, J "'• °''° '"'■""^'•y ^'^en the 

world IS at peace, It may do wuhin its own 

vided that in prosecuting its customary busi- 
eereVt ?ZT'' 'T/'^^'^J''^ ^^^^ard thebell - 
Franc^eTm r'- ^^' ^""^'"^ a war between 
rrance and Germany, or France and England 

and^shoufd'::;r.'^' ^ '^''r ^^'•'••- «f' "'; 

se 1 to th.lh" K^r""' ^"^ «liO"lcl -refuse to 
son for «n ? ^" ^^l''.g^'-«"^ without good rea- 
Bon for such discr.minuiion, founded in m-ior 
treaty, or resting upon other suthcient grounds 



then the proscribed belligerent would ha' 
cause of complaint. But while our Gover 
ment was wiUuig to sell to either belHgere 
r;iaT.^''^^^^«^^^'^^---ither^c": 

Uni'f Jd T'r^"^ l^^t pending such war tl 
Utiited States might sell their surplus arms c 

our own soil to our own merchants and th. 

such .merchants could sell to an ^g ^^'t of eith 

i.no^K^'^'F'''"''' ^"^ that a neiatral St a 
ore bv"it«^ '' ''"P the exportation of warli 

stores by Its own merchants when it is notr 

ortL^'h' Ir'' ""'' '^^^■■"-^ ^^ be us d by" on 
of the belligerents. There is therefore n 
ground whatever, in reason or expediency fo 
the distinction which is attempted'to be main 

Senator ^'■* ^'Tf.^d^^t'. i" the speech of th, 
bet ator from Missouri the other evening 

cha;;etr.Mr ^"^,^'-^-"y toabando7th, 
Charge that these sales were made in violaliot 

Mr'sPRnP? ""S^"" '^'' '^" of nations! 
Mr. bCHURZ. Not at all. 

Mr. CARPENTER. He says " not at all " 

that^Xse^'f 1 '^ '" '^^"T^"^ "^« t« «J^o- 
that these sales were made under such cir- 

n'^°u'^',f;' to be in violation of the rule 
7o^r'Veu7'' Department had established 
lor Itself during the continuance of the 

wa "thaPthrd" "T-- ^''^V'^^ -"'-ded for 
^v thl i . '^"■^'l^?" which had been given 
by the Secretary of War to his subordinates 
mi wi' ^° ^'"i"gton had not been carried 
out. Why, Mr. President, that order of the 

tZT'f '\''\''' '^' subordinates wa a 
bieath, and might be recalled by a breath Its 
observance «r non-observance is a matter in 
ce'n Thf'h'r" ^— -"terestor con 

cieTi"on .f- .i!" J^ '"^J""^ ^^' "^'l^i" the dis- 
c etion ot the Secretary of War; and if we 

e?Ibn t ",\"^">^^' obligations as' fixed and 
established by the law of nations, no foreign 
Power had any right to inquire into the ob 
servance or non-observance of our internal 
municipal regulations. "uernai 

.n?nT' ^^'""^ "^'"^-^^^ Government do? I shall 
spend no more time on the question of what 
^ had a right to do. What did it do? The 
Government went on selling arms to everv- 
body who came until the 13th of OctJbeT, 
ia 0. On the morning of that day it made 
deIiv'?'/'''\'° Remington & Sons, to be 
delivered subsequently as the arms could 
be CO lected from the arsenals and different 
depositaries of the United States. At a sub- 
sequent interview on that day, Mr Squire 
Seorft'"' Vw ^''^'^'^Stons, exhibited to h^ 
YoTk [o t^^^p^\^«le.g'--'" from Ilion, New 
lorlf, to W C. Squire at the Arlin.'toB 
House, Washington, Remington being ia 
!• ranee, as follows- ^ 






19 



to appraisement. Speculators in arms intended for 
France will find their profits small. Compeiilion 
■witb you has been forced and fictitious." 

From this telegram, unexplained, the Secre- 
tary of War interred that the lleniinglons were 
buying arms as the agents of the French Gov- 
ernment ; and in over-caution, the exercise of 
a prudence which was not required by law, the 
Sjecreiary of War directed that no further sales 
should be made to Remington. Tlie Secretary 
of War in taking that position was, as I say, 
doing whathe was not required to do. He went 
far beyond the requirement of international 
law, because the Government had a perfect 
right to sell these arms to either of the belli- 
gerents, as I have shown by the authorities 
which I have read. 

After the ISih of October the Government 
made no sales whatever to Remington, or to 
any person known to be an agent of Reming- 
ton or acting in his interest; altiiough subse- 
quent to the 13th of October the Government 
did execute the contract which it had made 
on the morning of that day, before the Secre- 
tary had seen this telegram, by a delivery of 
the arms. That is all the Government did. 

Now let us inquire whether Remington was 
in fact an agent of France on the 13lh of 
October. 

Mr. SCHURZ rose. 

Mr. CARPENTER. I am not on a ques- 
tion of law now, and I must decline to be 
interrupted. 

Mr. SCHURZ. On a question of fact. 

Mr. CARPENTER. 1 do not yield on a 
matter of fact. I decline to do so because it 
would lead to an interminable debate, and I 
am too ill to endure it. 

Now, was Remington an agent of France? 
This iiivesligaiiou clearly shows that he was not 
at the time these sales were made. The house 
of Remington & Sons had been for years 
engaged in the manufacture and sale of arms ; 
they had been contractors with various na- 
tions, as shown by the testimony of Squire, 
and for many years ; and in October, 1870, 
they were contractors of arms to the French 
Government. They were not the agents of the 
French Government in any proper sense. The 
contract between them and the French Gov- 
ernment was that they should deliver arms to 
France for a certain percentage above what 
the arms cost them in this country. From 
that the Senator infers that they were agents 
of France ; but that is not a legitimate infer 
ence. Merchants dealing with each other 
upon commission sustain the relation of prin- 
cipal and agent or not, according to the facts 
and circumsiances of each case. The mere 
fact that a cotn mission is paid does not determ- 
ine the question. 

To make out that Remington was an agent 
of France, it must be shown that if Remington 
had bought a portion of these arms in Wash- 
ington upon credit, and had promised to pay 



in thirty days, and yet, after he had purchased 
these arms and taken possession of them, he 
had sold them to somebody else, or thrown 
them away, Fiance would have been liable to 
us, because her agent had contracted with us, 
and his contract was her contract, and whether 
she ever gat the arms or not was a question 
between her and her agent. No such relations 
existed between France ami Remington, iiena- 
ington bought the arms here undoubtedly for 
the purpose of fulttUing his contract with 
France; but he bought ih^m in his own right 
as an American citizen and not as an agent of 
France, and the testimony of Mr. Squire upon 
this subject, found at page 23 of tlie report, is 
perfectly conclusive. He also testifies that 
later in the year, in December, 1870, long 
after the sales had been made, one of the Rem- 
ingtons did become an agent of France, com- 
missioned by letters from the French Govern- 
ment, and that he thereupon received the 
French funds in New York, and acted openly 
as their agent. 

This subject of the sale of arms, under the 
legal aspect of the case, may be summed up 
as follows: in the first place, I maintain, as 
established from these autlioriiies, what the 
report contends for, that if these sales had 
been made by our Government directly to an 
agent of the belligerent or to the sovereign 
of either belligerent in person, in the city of 
Washington, the law of nations would not 
have been violated. 

In the second place, I maintain that this 
proof shows that our Government never did 
sell a gun to a man known to be an agent of 
the French Government. 

In the third place, 1 maintain that the men 
to whom they did sell were not in fact agents 
at the time the sale was made. 

The next subject treated by the committee 
was whether the sales of arms were fairly and 
advantageously made. There is no question 
in regard to this point. I do not understand 
the Senator from Missouri to attack it at all. 
The testimony is entirely conclusive. There 
was a sale of what amounted to about ten 
million dollars of jiroperty which in a series 
of years would have become worthless or 
would require lor repairs and preservation a 
sum equal to th^ir value. They were sold by 
our officials taking advantage of the market 
and exercising their skill as tradesmen. They 
were sold on advantageous terms and at price? 
far higher than they would command to-day, 
and the Government received $10,000,000 for 
them. 

The Senator from Missouri made a calcula- 
tion, dividing this sum between the inhabitants 
of the United States, and reached the conclu- 
sion that what would be received by each inhab- 
itant was too trifling to induce liira to consent 
to a sale made under what he denominated 
such ''fearlul risks." What fearful risks? 
There was no danger of losing the good will 



20 



of Prussia. Her officials had too much sense 
to supj)Ose that we were duiiij; aiiylhing wrong 
by selling our own property in our own coun- 
try to any purchaser. Upon the former dis- 
cussion of ibis subject the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Wilson] read a latter from 
Mr. Spinner, Treasurer of the United States, 
from which I ask that an extract may be read. 
The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

" Tkeasury uf thk United States, 
Washington, February IG, 1872. 

"My Dear Sie: It has Dccurred tome that the fol- 
lowing tacis migbt be of interest to you, in connec- 
tion with tlie debate which hastalsen place in regard 
to the sale of arms by the United States to alleged 
agents of the French Government during the late 
war between France and Germany. 

" During my European tour last summer. I saw in 
several German newspapers a statement substan- 
tially as follows : 

"Baron Gerolt, it was said, had called the attention 
of Prince Uismarck to the fact that agents ol the 
French were large [lurchasersof arms and munitions 
in the United tstates, which he was intbrmcd were 
intended for the use of the French army of the Loire, 
lielieving this to be in violation of both the law of 
nations and treaty stipulations between Prussia and 
the United States, he deemed it his duty to call the 
attention of his Government to the facts and to ask 
for instructions as to the course which he should 
pursue. Should it, however, be concluded that his 
judgment as to the violation of law and treaty 
stipulations was erroneous, he desired to say that he 
had been assured that he could prevent the arms in 
question from going to France and obtain them for 
his own Government, upon payment of an advance 
of fifteen per cent, upon the price which the French 
had agreed to pay. 

"To this communication the German chancellor 
was said to have replied that in his opinion, after 
due examination and consideration, the reported 
sales of arms to France were in violation of neither 
the la_w of nations nor any treaty stipulations with 
the United States, and that, as to the purchase of 
the arms at an advance ot tilteen per cent, or at any 
other rate, he saw no reason for authorizing it, since 
the German trooi)s would doubtless be shortly able 
to obtain them fur nothing by picking them up on 
the banks of the Loire 1 " 

Mr. CARPEN TER. Upon the question of 
the legality of these sales I quote the chan- 
cellor of Germany against the Senator from 
Missouri. Bismarck was itifonned by the 
German minister at Washington of what was 
being done by our G')veriiinent, and was in- 
quired of, first, whether he should make any 
objection to it; and second, whether Prus- 
sia desired to purchase any of the arms? 
Bismarck, after due consideration, rejilied 
that the sales were legal, were not in viola- 
tion of the law of nations nor of any treaty 
between the United States and Prussia, and 
that Prussia did not desire to purchase any 
of the arms, preferring the chance of picking 
them lip on the banks of the Jjoire. What 
risk, then, did we run? Possibly the Admin- 
istration ran the risk of losing the support 
and friendship of the Senator from Missouri. 
That was, however, no risk at all, for ne was 
lost to the Administration long before. But 
if it were still an open question whether the 
Government should realize $10,01)0.000 by a 
perfectly legal sale of projierty that would 
soon become worthless in order to retain to 



the Administration the support of the Sena- 
tor from Missouri, I should vote against paying 
that sum for that purpose. [Laughter.] 

What risk, then, did we run? None what- 
ever. We exercised an undoubted right and 
performed, a clear duly. We put $10,000,000 
in the 'i'reasiiry, thus relieving to ihat extent 
the tax-payers of the country. 

Another subject investigated by the com- 
mittee was whether any officer of the Govern- 
ment had behaved improperly or profited per- 
sonally in connection with these sales. No 
time need be devoted to this point, because 
the charge is now abandoned. Since the evi- 
dence was taken it is not pretended by any 
one that there was any improper or corrupt 
conduct in these sales, or that any officer of 
the Government derived any profit from them. 
Every dollar that was received was paid into 
tlie Treasury, and it is now admitted on all 
sides that the supposed discrepancy of ac- 
counts between the War and Treasury Depart- 
ments had no existence in fact. 

The committee were also instructed to inquire 
" whether any member of the Senate, or any 
other American citizen, is or has been in com- 
munication or collusion with the Government 
or authorities of any foreign Power, or with 
any agent or officer thereof, in reference to 
the matter of said sales." It was in that 
branch of the investigation, I imagine, that 
the committee incurred the wrath of the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts and the Senator from 
Missouri. It appears that the ^larquis de 
Chambrun, who does not shine so brilliantly 
in the light of this teslmiony as he did in the 
speeches of those Senators precedingthe invest- 
igation, had been in Washington for some time 
and exceedingly anxious to have an- investiga- 
tion into this subject. It appears that he first 
applied to the Senator from New Hampshire, 
[Mr. Patterson,] and requested him to intro- 
duce a resolution. After considering the 
subject, Mr. Patterso.v informed him that 
he had deter.iiined not to do it and for the 
following among other reasons: 

"Besides, I thought, as a friend of the Adminis- 
tration, if any suljordinates in the employ of the 
Government tiad been connected with such fraud- 
ulent transactions, it was my duty to state the case 
to the President and to the Secretary of War, and 
let them take the initiative, and carry through any 
investigations of this kind." 

That was the very projier conclusion of the 
Senator from New Hampshire. Thereupon 
the Marquis de Chambrun applied to the Sec- 
retary of VVar, who testifies upon that subject: 
"I would further state, in reference to these pri- 
vate interviews, that on both those occasions, De- 
cember 27, 1871, and January 20, 1872, the Marquis 
de Chambrun informed me that he was satisfied that 
a resolution of investigation would be introduced 
in Congress, investigating the matters concerning 
these sales of arms: that he was a friend of the 
AdtninisI ration ; that he was attached to the Admin- 
istration; that he was anxious that this resolution 
should bi^ ofl'ci ed by some person wlio was a friend 
ot the A Iniinistratiou ; ana that he thought I bad 
better use my iuliueaco to that end." 



21 



The Secretary of War declined to have any- 
thing to do with it; told the Marquis de Cham- 
hruii he cared nothing about an investigation ; 
there was nothing to be concealed, the invest- 
igation was already made ; tor he had made 
the reports, and the books of the Department 
were open to everybody. Having failed in his 
application to the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire and to the Secretary of War, and, as far 
as the Senator from New Hampshire is con- 
cerned, because he was a friend of the Admin- 
istration, the Marquis turned his attention to 
Senators who were known not to befriends of 
the Administration; and henceforth we find 
him in daily communication with the Senator 
from Massachusetts down to the time when 
this preamble and resolution were introduced. 
It also appears that he furnished the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts with the copy of the 
letter from Remington tj Le Cesne, which 
constitutes an essential part of the Senator's 
famous preamble, although he denied having 
done this to Secretary Boutwell, and pretended 
that he had given a copy of the letter to Sen- 
ator Pattersox to show to the Piesident, and 
that Pattersox had delivered it to the Senator 
from Massachusetts. The latter Senator, how- 
ever, testifies that he received the copy of this 
letterfrom Chambrun himself; thus positively, 
while under oath, contradicting the testimony 
of his friend Chambrun, whom he lauded so 
highly in his former speech uj^on this subject. 
Indeed poor Chambrun, as he is exhibited in 
the testimony, is entitled to commiseration. 

Mr. President, one remark more upon the 
pretended discrepancy of accounts between 
the two Departments. The Secretary of War 
was an officer of honorable service during the 
rebellion, and the Secretary of the Treasury 
is an honored citizen of Massachusetts. This 
suspicion cast upon the honored heads of 
two of the Executive Departments by this 
intriguing Frenchman might have been dis- 
pelled by an examination of the published 
documents upon our table, or at the trifling 
incoiivenieiice of walking to the Departments 
to ascertain the truth. But Secretaries Bel- 
knap and Boutwell are personal friends of the 
President. This cancels all their excellence 
in the estimation of the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts, and he was willing to arouse and con- 
firm popular suspicion against their integrity, 
to secure reflected discredit upon their chief, 
the President of the United States ; and to 
that end the Senator introduced his pream- 
ble, not knowing, and apparently not caring, 
whether it recited truth or falsehood, and made 
it the foundation of anaciimonious attack upon 
the Administration. Tliese facts reflecta strong 
light upon the motives of that Senator in all 
this business. 

1 have spoken to all the principal subjects 
embraced in this report. Its statement of 
facts is abundantly sustained by the accom- 
panying testimony, and I have referred to 



the authorities which suppport the principles 
of international law which the report adopts. 
And here I leave the rej^ort to the dispassion- 
ate judgment of the peo[)le. ' 

But, sir, the present debate, begun by the 
Senator from Massachusetts on Friday and 
continued by the Senator from Missouri on 
Friday evening, was not intended to discuss 
the question of the sale of arms. That was 
the pretext for thrusting another political de- 
bate upon the Senate prior to the Philadelphia 
convention. I have already shown you how 
the Senator from Massachusetts glided by this 
subject with only a passing and angry glance, 
and devoted columns of personal abuse to the 
Chief Magistrate of the nation. The subject 
was originally introduced for mere partisan 
purposes, not to ascertain the facts, and this 
new phase of it is iu full keeping with the 
primary design. The object is to prejudice the 
Administration with calumny and falsehood, 
in the vain hope of thwarting the manifesc 
purpose of the people to renominate and reelect'. 
General Grant. The late speech of the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts, with two paragraphs 
upon the subject and twenty columns of 
calumny upon General Grant, fully justifies 
this statement. 

Mr. President, the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts has assumed a position which not 
only invites but compels an examination of 
his motives, and after his deliberate and mer- 
ciless attack upon General Grant, who by the 
proprieties of his station is precluded from 
replying, the Senator cannot complain if the 
friends of General (irant accept the war he 
has declared, and carry it into the Senator's 
own camp. 

The Senator from Massachusetts has long 
been in public life. He was associated early 
with measui es which finally triumphed, chang- 
ing the policy of this country from a protection 
of slavery into a vindication of freedom. When 
this great consummation was accomplished, it 
was natural that its leaders and champions 
should be held in honor and regarded with af- 
fection by cidaborers in the same field, and 
by the enfranchised race. The Senator en- 
joyed the flattering and dangerous encomiums 
which a grateful people always bestow upon 
real or supposed benefactors. But it proved 
true of him, as of many others, that the forti- 
tude which can survive opposition, is not always 
distinguished by the steadiness that can endure 
success. The adulation of thousands, and the 
constant burning of incense before him, have 
so completely turned his head that he seems 
incapable of considering any subject apart 
from himself. He has, as it is reported, long 
been not only an admirer, but an imitator of 
Burke ; and it is clear that in the elaborate and 
malignant philippic upon the President, which 
he read in the Senate on Friday, which was 
composed at great expense of midnight oil, 
printed in pamphlet form, aod partially dis- 



22 



tributed before its delivery in the Senate, the 
Senator had in mind Burke's terrible arraign- 
ment of Warren Hastings, which was so vin- 
dictive as to provoke the following epigram : 

" Oft have we wondered that on Irish ground 
No poisonous rei'tile bus ere yet been found ; 
Revealed the secret stands of Nature's work. 
She saved her venom to create a Burke." 

Imitators are always more successful in 
copying the vices than the virtues of the old 
masters; and (he Senator's philippic as far 
excels its model in malice and meanness as 
it falls sliort of it in grandeur and eloquence. 
And there are many reasons for fearing that 
the Senator will meet the fate of Burke, who 
late in life turned away from his early princi- 
ples and died in the embrace of his early 
enemies, detested by his early friends. 

I propose to consider several of the articles 
of irapeHchment which are set in array by the 
Senator's speech against the President. And 
first let me consider the charge that the Presi- 
dent has turned the Executive Mansion into a 
military headquarters. What are the facts? 
Three dffict-rs of the Army may be found in 
the White House. Babcock, a major of engin- 
eers, detailed in pur.>*uance of an act of Con- 
gress to act as commissioner of public build- 
ings and grounds; and Dent and Porter, 
officers belonging to the staff of General Sher- 
man. Three more modest and courteous gen- 
tlemen cannot be found in the United States. 
They were memliers of General Grant's mili- 
tary family during the war, and they love him, 
as do all ihose who have ever served with him. 
In so far as they can assist the President, it is 
with them a labor of love to do so, and only 
a labor of love, for neither one of them re- 
ceives one cent of compensation for such 
service. If ihey were all dismissed from the 
White House to-day Babcock would have an 
office in some other public building, and re- 
ceive the same salary as at present. Dent and 
Porter would be occupying rooms in the War 
Department, dividing with other assistants of 
General Sherman labor nolvery severe in these 
piping times of peace, and which would be 
lighter still when siill further divided. It has 
been attempted by the Senator to exalt these 
gentlemen into some official importance ; but 
they are merely clerks at the White House, 
assisting the President, with the permission of 
General Sherman, their official chief; and here 
let me repeat tliat neither of them receives a 
cent for such assistance beyond his pay as an 
officer of the Army. 

Now for the precedents. General Washing- 
ton appointed General Knox, his old comrade 
in arms, .Secretary of War ; General Jackson 
was assisted hy Major Donaldson ; .General 
Taylor by his son-in law. Colonel Bliss, and 
President Johnson, by four officers of the 
Army, deiailed for service at the White House. 
When General Grant took possession of the 
White House it was patrolled by sentinels day 



and night; so was the War Department ; so was 
the residence of Mr. Seward. Tlie first night 
General Grant slept at the President's House, 
alter retiring, he heard the tramp of soldiers 
in the hall below, and presently the command, 
"Halt; order arms," and the crash of mus- 
kets on the floor. The General, not knowing 
wliat it meant, ran down stairs to asceriain. 
There he found an officer in command of a 
squad of soldiers ; and on asking an explana- 
tion, the General was informed that it was 
the night guard of the Executive Mansion, 
which lor a long time had been stationed there 
every night. But General Grant informed the 
officer that he could take care of himself, and 
ordered him to take his soldiers to their quar- 
ters. He waited till his armed friends had 
Ifti't, then locked the door and went to bed. 
The next day the whole business of sentinel 
service was dUcontiiiued, and not a soldier has 
been on duty at the White House since. Gen- 
eral Grant also ordered away trom Washington 
all the companies of soldiers which were on 
duty here when he was inaugurated ; and not 
a company of troops can now be lound in or 
around Washington city. 

Now, in the light of these facts, let me turn 
to the Senator's speech and read what he says 
about the turning of the Executive Mansion 
into a military headquarters, it is a f,iir sam- 
ple of the monstrous exaggerations of the 
Senator's speech : 
"illegal military ring at executive mansion. 

"The military spirit which failed in the effort to 
set aside a I'uudaiuental law as if it were a tran- 
sient order was more successful at the Execuiive 
M.insion, which at once assumed the character of 
military headquarters. To the dishonor ot the civil 
.service, and in total disregard of precedent, the 
President surrounded himself with oUicers of the 
Army, and substituted military forms lor those of 
civil life, detailing for this service members of his 
late staff." 

Allow me to call attention again to the pre- 
cise language ; and here let me reneat that 
this speech of the Senator from M tssachu- 
setts is not to be estimated as you would esti- 
mate a speech thrown off in the heal of an 
extempore debate. This wrath was carefully 
disiilled ; this speech was prepared with great 
and protracted labor. 

Here is a deliberate arraignment, and what 
is here is either deliberate truih or deliberate 
falsehood; one or the other. When he alleges, 
as he does here, that "to the dishonor of the 
civil service and in total disregard of prece- 
dent, the President surrounded himself with 
officers of the Army, and substituted military 
forms for those of civil life, detailing for this 
service members of his late staff," the Sena- 
tor from Massachusetts penned, revised, cor- 
rected, jninted, published, sent to the world a 
delilntratc truth or a deliberate falsehood. 
Which was it? Was there no precedent for 
his being served by a few clerks who were 
wdling to aid liim without pay, from mere 
i personal affection? Did not Andrew Johnson 



23 



have four Array officers detailed for service in 
the While House? Had not Andrew Johnson 
been surrounded with sentinels and the White 
Houfe guarded like a military fortress; and in 
all the complaints that were made against 
Andrew .Johnson, did any man charge him 
with violating the law in having his house pro- 
tected at right by sentinels? Was any com- 
plaint made upon the ground that tliree or 
four Army officers were serving him in the 
capacity of clerks in the White House? If 
there was, I never heard of it, and yet we 
know that in that heated and angry time those 
who opposed Andrew Johnson were not over- 
scrupulous about the charges they brought 
against him, and still such a thing was never 
laid to his charge, although, as I have shown, 
instead of what has been done and is being 
done now being without a precedent, it is less 
in every respect than was done during the 
entire administration of Mr. Johnson without 
criticism from anybody whatever. 

But again, this is a charge not only that the 
Executive Mansion has assumed the character 
of military headquarters, but that he has sub- 
stituted military forms for those of civil life. 
I ttike it to be the duty of this Senate, I take 
it to be the duty of the members of the other 
House, I take it to be the duty of all lovers of 
truth and justice, who reside for a portion of 
the year in Washington and know the facts, 
to bear testimony to the American people 
whether this arraignment of President Grant 
is a truth or a falsehood. Senators, how has 
tlie White House been made to assume the 
character of military headquarters? Do you 
encounter any sentinel at the door? Do you 
see any orderly on the stairs ? Do you see a 
gun or a musket or a shoulder-strap in the 
White House from top to bottom? Not one. 
The whole charge is baseless as a dream. 

Then came the Senator to the great crimes 
of nepotism and gift receiving. Well, I do not 
propose to waste much strength upon either 
of these subjects. Nepotism is a pretty large 
phrase, and would include a good many of us 
in its rigid application. I am not aware that 
it is any worse for a man to procure his brother 
to be appointed to an office, if competent to 
discharge its duties, than it is to procure an 
appointment for a particular friend. In prin- 
ciple there is no difference between the two 
eases. It may be that if we were exercising 
that romantic Spartan simplicity of manner 
which may return after the millennium, when 
the Senator from Massachusetts and the Sen- 
ator from Missouri shall be in joint possession 
of the White House, this sort of thing might 
be olsjeoted to ; but really, in the practical 
course of business in this country, the thing 
is a little too trifling to deserve serious atten- 
tion. 

Receiving gifts! What is thereof this? Sim- 
ply that it results from the consciousness of 
the American people that the salaries paid by 



our Government are but niggardly compensa- 
tion for high public service. When the war 
closed, the exultation and gratitude of the 
people were unbounded, and it naturally found 
expression toward those wlio had rendered 
most distinguished service in suppressing the 
rebellion. 

Many instances of the same nature are found 
in English history. Marlborough and Welling- 
ton were both honored and rewarded by simi- 
lar expressions of admiration and gratitude. 
True, in these cases the acts of reward pro- 
ceeded from Parliament, but Parliament waa 
not fettered by the rigid provisionsof a written 
constitution, and could in its omnipotence so 
give voice to the feelings of the British people. 
Here the most that Congress could do would 
be limited to the gift of a sword, with as few 
diamonds as possible about the hilt. But 
here the peopJe in their own generous way, 
spontaneously rendered tribute, and a victori- 
ous general could certainly not be regarded as 
tarnishing his laurels by accepting such volun- 
tary, nay, enthusiastic evidence of apprecia- 
tion. Grant was not alone in receiving such 
tokens of appreciation and gratitude. Sher- 
man, McClellan, Sheridan, and other distin- 
guished officers were recipients of the same 
kind of acknowledgments. 

Are these free gifts of a grateful people — a 
people grateful for country and liberties 
saved — to be likened to bribes? Who will say 
it? The Senator from Massachusetts, in his 
assumption of personal purity and lofty virtue, 
may utter his spurious indignation, and fortify 
his position by '' wise saws and modern in- 
stances," but the robust common sense of the 
American people will reject with contempt all 
such absurd criiicism and censure. 

The next serious arraignment of the Presi- 
dent is in respect to the " big " war he prose- 
cuted against Haytil i do not propose to go 
through the San Domingo discussion again. 
We had it here in secret session and in open 
session. The Senator from Missouri labored 
at great length, in open session, to show that 
the President of the United States had for a 
long time been levying war upon the republic 
of Hayti, and the Senator from Massachusetts 
swelling with what I have no doubt he thought 
was inspiration, but what was undoubtedly 
mere atmosphere, repeated some ancient 
writer who says, "There is no such thing as 
a small war." He allowed the Senator from 
Missouri to establish the fact that there had 
been a war, and then he resurrected antiquity 
to say that there could be no "small" war. 
Well, take the two Senators together, and 
what resulted? Why, that General Grant 
prosecuted for months a great war against 
Hayti. 

Now, is that really so, or is there a little 
exaggeration about that, too? Is that subject 
to the same deduction and discount you have 
to make in regard to the White House having 



24 



been turned into a fort, and civil life having 
lost its appearance entirely in the military 
arrangement for deletipe within which General 
Grant has intrenclied himself against the as- 
saults of the Senator from Mas!=achasetts and 
the Senator from Missouri? Yes, sir, this 
statement needs just the same deduction. 
Genera! Grant, it must be understood, knows 
something about the methods of war. Had 
the Senator from Massachusetts been Presi 
dent of the United States and wanted to levy 
a war upon Hayti, it is very probable that he 
would have was;cd it in as gentle a manner as 
Grant is alleged to have done this : but Gen- 
eral Grant manages war after a different fash- 
ion. He was Commatider-in-Chief of the Army 
and of the Navy, and if he meant to make war 
upon Hayti he knew how to do it. 

But, sir, what was there of that great war 
upon Hayti? When it was finally ciphered 
down on the investigation, and the precise 
facts ascertained, the only act done by any 
naval officer which could be tortured into a 
prosecution of war, was the firing off of one 
sky-rocket from tiie deck of one of our ships, 
somewhere tiear the coast of Hayti. So that 
we are told that General Grant, a chieftain of 
some repuiaiion and experience, in command 
of the Army and Navy of one of the greatest 
nations on earth, levied a war upon that fee- 
ble Government for months, and, in the fres- 
coed rhetoric of the Senator from Massachu- 
setts, a great war, too ; yet not a soldier 
marched, not a gun was fired, not a pocket 
pistol was drawn ; a single sky-rocket was 
discharged from a man-of-war. [liaughter. ] 

What is the cliarge against the President? 
Why, that he usurped the war power of this 
nation when he fired that sky-rocket. [Laugh- 
ter.] You cannot tire a sky-rocket from a 
man-of-war in the Indian ocean, nor in Liv- 
erpool, nor anywhere on the globe, without a 
previous act of Congress specifying the precise 
moment when the sky-rocket shall be fired, 
in what direction it shall be aimed, how much 
material shall be in it, and the purpose for 
which it i-hiill be fired. And if you do not so 
provide, and if any naval officer somewhere 
shall, no matter wiih what purpose, send up 
into blue spjice one sky rocket, the President 
of the United States, who never even saw the 
sky-rocket, is chargeable with having usurped 
the war power of tlie nation and levied a war 
for several motitlis. There are a great many 
things that might be said about this moment- 
ous matter; but, indeed, it ia hardly worth 
more talk. I do not believe the people of 
this country will quite think General Grant 
made a war for several months that nobody 
ever heard of, and in which not eveiva pocket 
pistol was discharged. 

But the n)()st, remarkable part of the Sen- 
ator's speech remains to be considered. I 
think the people, as they read this malicious 
arraignment, may lose their patience, but they 



will probably preserve their gravity until they 
come to the place where tlie Senator from 
Massachusetts arraigns the Ple^idenl of the 
United States for egotism, selt'-pretensiorn and 
a quarrelsome disposition. Mr. Pre.-ident, if 
tlie people of the United States could s'^e these 
men as we see them d:iiiy in official and social 
intercourse, if they could be acquainted as we 
are with their incomings and outgoings, their 
daily walk and conversation, they would com- 
prehend the joke to a degree which they never 
could without such knowledge. Sir, go to 
the White House any day, or any evening, 
and you see the President of the United States, 
a mild, gentle-mannered man, accessible to 
the highest, lowest, richest, poorest, blackest, 
whitest citizen of the United States; to a'l 
who seek him " sweet as summer," never 
alluding to himself, never referring to his 
achievements in the war. 'J'nrn frcm that 
picture to the lofty and prancing Senator from 
Massachusetts, who has just jji-anced out of 
the Chamber, [laughter,] and then imagine 
that Senator in all his pomp and pride of cir- 
cumstance, rising here with apiepared and 
printed, revised and corrected oration, arraign- 
ing General Grant for egotism and pretension ; 
and yet more, for a quarrelsome turn ol mind 1 

Now, Mr. President, here is another poiutas 
to wiiich it is our duty to testily. 'J'he Ameri- 
can people do not fully know these two men. 
They do not know how false in every sense, 
not only in its letter, but in its spirit, and in all 
the impressions it is designed to produce, that 
assertion is. We do know it. 1 appeal to you, 
Senators, as men of honor; I say jou cannot 
sit here silently and witness such injustice 
committed in this Chamber. Ifyoudo, you 
become a party to it. Your silence gives as- 
sent to it, and in some sense you give your 
approbation to that charge, and send it out 
against General Grant before the American 
people. 

\Vhat are the facts? And I speak now of 
what every man who knows General Grant 
knows. 1 was trying last night to recall a 
single instance if in conversation in regard to 
the late war 1 had heard General Giant allude 
to himself, and 1 could not. 1 have heard him 
speak in the most glowing terms of his com- 
rades in arms. I have heard him speak of the 
exploits of Sherman. 1 have heard him allude 
10 wliat was done by Logan, by McPherson, 
and by many other officers of the Union Aruiy. 
I never heard him say, speaking of a battle, 
'• At such a juncture 1 thought 1 would do so 
and so;" or, "1 ordered a battalion this way 
or that;" or, ''I turned the scale by such a 
maneuver." I never heard him allude to 
himself in connection with the war. I believe 
you might go to the White House and live 
with the President and converse about the war 
day after day, and you never would know from 
anything he said that he was in the war at all. 

Turn now again to his great accuser, the 



25 



Senator from Massachusetts. Who ever heard 
him speak five mimiies on any subject that he 
did not glorify himseK? [Ijaugiiter.] 1 chal- 
lenge any man, any (riena of iiis, to go to the 
Jjibrary and biing at random any volume of 
the Congressional Globe since he took his 
seat as a Senator, and show me five incites of 
a speech of that Senator that does not praise 
himself. Why, sir, in ihis very speech in which 
be arraigns General Grant for egotism, he 
commences hy glorifying iiimself. He estab- 
lished this Kepiiblican [larty ; he was the ear- 
liest and the most anxious, and he the most 
effective of those men who brought it into 
being ; and lie prays for its life less for its own 
sake liian that he may be spared the sorrow 
of following its hearse. Sir, the absurdity of 
this charge, when you consider the two men 
as we know them, both the accuser and the 
accused, passes all human understanding, 
comprehension, or belief. 

I have heard it said (and I am sorry that 
the Senator is not here lo correct me if it is 
not true) that a very estimable lady once wrote 
to the Senator from Massachusetts invoking his 
aid for some individual who had a case or a 
claim before Congress. The Senator rejilied 
that he was so absorbed in the contemplation of 
general principles, and so arduously laboring 
for the welfare of man in general, that he had 
no time to devote to the wants of individuals. 
The lady responded, thanking him for the 
civility of his reply, and reminding him that so 
far as she was informed he had taken a some- 
what lottier attitude than was occupied by the 
Almighty, [laughter ;] that while He governed 
the universe, while He ruled the orbs ii-i their 
spheres, He also considered the wants of His 
childi eti, and that not even a sparrow could fall 
without His knowledge. 

But another great offense of the President 
is that he is so quarrelsome; and here I will 
ask the Secretary to read from the Senator's 
speech the paragraph which 1 have marked. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

"Evidently our President Las never read the 
eleventh comiaandment : 'A President of the 
United States shall never quarrel.' At least he 
lives in perpetual violation ot it, listening to stories 
from horse-cars, gobbling the gossip ol' his military 
ring, discoursing on imaginary griefs, and nursing 
his unjust anger. The elect of lorty million people 
has no right to quarrel with anybody. His position 
is too exalted, tie cannot do it without offense to 
the requirements of patriotism, without a shock to 
the decencies of life, without a jar to the harmony 
of the universe." 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, it is 
one of the commonest, though by no means 
the greatest, errors into which the Senator 
from Massachusetts has fallen that he identi- 
fies himself so completely with the universe 
that he is not at all certain whether he is part 
of the universe, or the universe is part of him. 
[Laughter.] He asserts here that when the 
President quarrels with him — of course that 
is what he means ; he did not mention him- 



self, but he never considered anybody but 
himself; and when he was sfieaUing of the Pres- 
ident quarreling he meant that great quarrel 
of which the President has been made the vic- 
tim, and to which he has quieily and silently 
submitted, a quarrel forced upon him by the 
Senator — he says that such a quarrel jars the 
harmony of the universe! Well, well! The 
Senator from Massachusetts might be jarred 
a great deal more than he has been, and the 
universe would not take the slightest notice 
of it. [Laughter.] The universe would not 
tremble if he were hit tar more severely than 
he ever has been. 'I'his is one of those stu- 
pendous, inconceivable evidences of the humil- 
ity of the Senator from Massachusetts which 
i wish 1 could read in the hearing of every 
man in this land. 

Bu», Mr. President, this is not the highest 
point of arrogance and assumption to which 
the Senator rises in this paragraph. It is not 
that he has mistaken himself for the universe 
that anybody will seriously complain. He has 
risen in this paragraph above the universe; 
he has seated himhclf by the side of the 
Almighty, and undertaken a revision, correc- 
tion, and enlargement of His wwrks : 

"Evidently our Presidoat has never read the 
eleventh commandment." 

Now, then, comes the quotation. From 
whom ? 

"A President of the United States shall never 
quarrel." 

This is the addition which the Senator from 
Massachusetts engrafts upon the decalogue, 
that body of laws given by (lod to man amid 
the thunders of Sinai. I hold in my hand the 
sacred volume which contains the revelations 
of man's latest existence on earth, and pene- 
trates the vail and discloses the mysteries 
beyond. John, on the island of Patmos, 
being " in the spirit on the Lord's day," saw 
many things, clean and unclean ; he saw the 
great red dragon with seven heads and ten 
horns ; he saw the whore of Babylon in scarlet 
attire; and he saw the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts. [Laughter and applause in the gal- 
IferiGS I 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Ed- 
munds in the chair.) Order must be pre- 
served, or the galleries will be cleared. 

Mr. CARPEN I'ER. And apparently with 
a view to prevent the blasphemy which we 
have witnessed in this Chamber there are 
written at the conclusion of this sacred vol- 
ume which contains the liglit of our life in 
this life and our guide to a better abode above 
words of awful admonition which I commend 
to the careful study of the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts: 

" For I testify unto every man that heareth the 
words of the prophecy of Ihis book, if any man 
shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him 
the plagtien tliat arc written, in thin hook." 

"And if any man shall take away from the words 
of the book of this prophecy, (iod shall take away 



26 



his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy 
city, and I'roui the tliiugs which are written in this 
book." 

Oh, Senator from Massachusetts, reviser 
and corrector of the decalogue, how I regret 
your absence so that you cannot, hear these 
passages of Scripture! [Laughter.] Why, 
sir, if the presumption of the Senator from 
Massachusetts should only reacli a Utile higher, 
you might find in the book-stalls of this city 
within a year a volume entiiled "The Sermon 
on the Mount, revised, corrected, and greatly 
enlarged and improved by Chari.es Sumner." 
[Laughter.] I submit such a production would 
be in perfect keeping with his supplement to 
the decalogue. 

But, Mr. President, suppose that on a care 
ful and impartial investigation of facts it 
should turn out that all the quarrel that exists 
between the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the President of the United States is a quarrel 
entirely on the part of the Senator, and that 
it JB based upon motives utterly unworthy of 
a Senator, what would be thought of it then? 
1 am sorry he is not here to correct me if I 
aca misinformed, but I am told by those who 
ought to know that the first trouble that oc- 
curred between the Senator from Massachusetts 
and the Administiatlon was in regard to the 
Greek mission. It was held by Mr. Tucker- 
inan, who had always performed his duty to 
the satisfaction of the Government, and on 
the accession of this Administration the Sena- 
tor from Massachusetts, as chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations, demanded 
that place, and demanded it for a friend of his 
in Boston, upon the ground that his friend 
had, as he said, been "'a life-long friend." It 
so happened that the Administration could 
not consistently and properly gratify the Sen- 
ator in this matter. The demand, as I under- 
stand it, was made on m-a^e personal grounds. 
The Senator from Massachusetts demanded 
the appointment not because Mr. Tuckerman 
was not a worthy rep'-esen'ative, but because 
the Senator desir-sd to gratify a "life-long 
friend." If this w;ts not " nepotism " on the 
part of the Senator, what was it? 

Then came the removal of Mr. Motley, min- 
ister to England, fur reasons satisfactory to 
the Senate. I hat matter was considered in 
secret session, and I cannot refer to anything 
that took place. I cannot say whether or not 
in that debate the ScTiator I'rom Massachusetts 
declared that Mr. Motley's appointment had 
been oonceded to him as chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations. 1 cannot say 
whether or not Mr. Sumner declared that Mr. 
Motley was his personal friend. I cannnt say 
whether or not Mr. Sumner said that if Mr. 
Motley should be removed it would be the end 
of all amicable relations between him and this 
Administration, or words to that effect. 1 can- 
not say anything about it, and I do not intend 
to do so. [Laughter.] But, I say, suppose 



such were the facts, what would the people of 
this country think of the Senator who now 
comes here and arraigns the President as a 
quarreler, and announces liimself as the cham- 
pion of civil service reform, and opposed to 
entertaining personal considerations in the 
administration of public affairs? 

There are so many remarkable tilings in the 
Senator's speech that it is impossible to 
dwell longer on any one poitit, and my strength 
is so far exhausted that I shall be compelled 
to leave many of these sweets for further con- 
sideration by other Senators. There is one 
thing, however, which lor its enormitydeserves 
special attention, atid if 1 thought it would 
take the last breath of life I have to spend on 
anything, I would spend it on this. I ask the 
Secretary to read the extract in relation to 
Mr. Stanton. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

"the TKSTIMONY of HON. E. M. STANTON. 

"Something also must bo attributed to individual 
character; and here 1 express no opinion of my 
own ; 1 shall allow another to speak in solemn words 
echoed from the tomb. 

"Uu reaching Wastiington at the opening of Con- 
gress in ]>ecember, ISbit. I was pained to hear that 
Mr. Stanton, lately Secretary of War, was in fail- 
ing health. Full of gratitude for his unsurpassed 
services, and with a sentiment of friendship quick- 
ened by common political sympathies, 1 lost no 
time in seeing him, and repeated my visits until his 
death, toward the close of the same month. My 
last visit was martced by a communication never to 
be forgotten. As 1 entered his bedroom, where I 
found liim reclining on a sofa, propped by pillows, 
he reached out his hand, already ciaiumy cold, and 
in reply to my inquiry, "JIow are youV answered, 
'Waiting for iny furlough.' Then at once with 
singular solemnity he said, 'I have something to 
say to you.' When I was seated he proceeded 
without one word of introduction: 'I know Gen- 
eral Grant better than any other person in the 
country can know him. It was my duty to study 
him, and I did so, night and day, when I saw 
him and when I did not see him, and now I 
tell you what 1 know, he cannot govern thin coun- 
try.' The intensity of his manner and the posi- 
tiveness of his judgment surprised mo. fur though 
I was aware that the late Secretary of War did not 
place the President very high in general capacity, I 
was not prepared for ajudgmontso strongly couched. 
At last, alter some delay, occupied in meditating his 
remarkable words, 1 observed, "What you say is 
very broad.' "It is as true >^is it is broad,' ho re- 
plied promptly. I added. 'You are tardy ; you tcH 
this late ; why did you not say it before his nomina- 
tion?' lie answered that he was not consulted 
about the nomination, and had no opportunity of 
expressing his opinion upon it, besides being much 
occu{)ied at the time by his duties as Secretary of 
War and his contest with the President. 1 followed 
by saying, 'But you took part in the presidential 
election, and made a succession of speeches lor him 
in Oliio and Pennyylvania.' 'I spoke,' said he, 
' but 1 never introduced the name of General Grant, 
I spoke for the Republican party anil the Repub- 
lican cause.' This was the last time 1 saw Mr. Stan- 
ton. A few days later I followed him to the grave 
where he now rests." 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. President, let us 
examine this remarkable statement a little in 
detail. The Senator asserts that this interview 
occurred a few days before Mr. Stanton's 
death; and that Mr. Stanton was expressing 
not a sudden conclusion formed upon newly- 
discovered testimony, but the result of his 



27 



study of Grant's character for many years. 
He makes Mr. Stanton say " I know General 
Grant better than any other person in the 
connlry c;tn know him. It was my duty to 
Study him when I saw him and when I did 
not see him, " &c. And he makes him say 
"that he was not consulied about the nomin- 
ation " of General Giant fur the Presidency, 
and that in the speeches which he (Stanton) 
made during the campaign lie never intro- 
duced the name of General Grant. 

The Senator from Massachusetts has been 
very unfortunate in all this business. He 
waded into this investigation chin deep upon 
the strength of letters of very eminent individ- 
uals, whose names he refused to disclose, and 
whose testimony, therefore, we could not ob- 
tain. But upon this occasion he evidently 
intended to support his charge against Gen- 
eral Grant by witnesses who could not be 
called to imppach him. So he violated ail the 
delicacies of friendship and invaded tlie sane 
tuary of the grave and called Edwin M. Stan- 
ton back to l)ear testimony agairist the Presi- 
dent of the United States. Sir, it is a little 
difficult to kee)i stricily within parliamentary 
decorum and say what ought to be said on such 
an occasion. I shall attempt to do it, and I 
hope I sh-dll succeed. 

In the first place, I am speaking to men who 
will know whether I am right or wrong in what 
I say ; and I assert that if Mr. Stanton made 
that declaration to the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts under the circumstances detailed by 
him, if there is a word of substantial truth in 
that whole paragraph, if it be not an infamous 
fabrication from first to last, then Mr. Stanton 
was the most double faced and dishonest man 
that ever lived ; and I call upon Senators 
around me to bear testimony upon this point. 

There were accidents that brought me to know 
Mr. Stanton very well. 1 came here to attend 
to an important lawsuit, occupied a room in 
the War Department, and for several months 
saw Mr. Stanton daily. I went to the Supreme 
Court in the morning at eleven o'clock to 
watch the progress of its business, and I was 
at leisure for the rest of the day. I was much 
of the time at the Department, and therefore 
frequently with him. He was at that time, as 
you all know, imprisoned in the Depaitment 
in consequence of troubles with the President, 
and he used to come into my room to smoke 
and often invited me to walk with him. In 
the course of our conversations I heard him 
refer to General Grant a hundred times, and 
never but with the highest respect and the 
kindest feeling. 

I came here a Senator at the session at 
which Mr. Stanton died and was frequently 
at his house during his last illness. I saw 
him just before he died, under circumstances 
which gave me an opportunity to know more 
thati I should otherwise have known of his 
feeling toward General Grant. I had charge 



for the first time in my life of a bill in the Sen- 
ate, the bill which we passed for the recon- 
structio;i of the Legislature of Georgia, after 
the colored members had been exf)elled. We 
sat late at niglit to pass it. At about half past 
eleven, while in my seat, it occurred to me 
something might be done to insure the app(»int- 
ment of Mr. Stanton as judtre of the Supreme 
Court. It had been tadied about for some 
weeks. It had been ex[)ected by many of us, 
and yet his nominaiioii did not come. 1 then 
and there drew up a letter to the President 
recommending Mr. Stantoti to be a[)pointed 
judge of that court. I took it around this 
Chamber and in less than twenty minutes 
obtained thirty-seven signatures ot Repuljlican 
Senators. That was Frnlny night, and belbre 
leaving the Senate Chamber I agreed with the 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Chandler] to 
meet me at the White House the following 
morning, Saturday, at ten o'clock, to present 
the letter to the President. 

The next morning at ten o'clock I rode to 
Mr. Stanton's and showed him the letter, and 
as he glanced over it the tears started down his 
cheeks. He said not a word. He did not 
even say, thank you. Witnessing the depth 
ofhisemotion I bowed myself out, telling him 
that I was going to present it to the President. 

I carried it to the President and found the 
Senator from Michigan with the President, 
awaiting me. Said the President : 

"lam delighted to have that letter; I have de- 
sired for weeks to appoint Mr. Stanton to that place, 
and yet, in euosequeiice of his having been Secre- 
tary of War and so prouiinenl in the recent political 
strife, I have doubted whether it woulil answer to 
make him n jwtge ; that indorsement is all I want; 
you go to Mr. S'anton's house and tell him hisname 
will be sent to the Senate on Monday morning." 

This was on -Saturday. I then drove back 
to Mr. Stanton's house and told him what the 
President had said. Mr. Stanton's first reply 
was: "The kindness of General Grant — it is 
perfectly characteristic of him — will do more 
to cure me than all the skill of the doctors." 
And, sir, I know that in tlie seiious illness 
which terminated so disastrously he frequently 
had occasion to refer to the course of the Ad- 
ministration, to matters that were pending in 
Congress, and I do know, and I can testify, 
and I hold it to be ray solemn duty to testify, 
that in all those interviews, from first to last, 
from the time I first made his acquaintance 
down to the hour of his death, I never heard 
him say of General Grant anything that was 
not of the kindest nature and of the highest 
praise. 

My friend from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] 
reminds me of a difficulty that occurred after 
the name of Mr. Stanton was sent to the Sen- 
ate. He was appointed to succeed Mr. Justice 
Grier who had retired, to take effect on a 
future day, the 1st of February I think, that 
he might be present at the decision of some 
causes that had been previously argued. Mr. 



28 



Stanton's name was sent here; he was con- 
firmed by the Senate, and a commission made 
out and ready to be delivered. The President 
then suirt;ested tliis ddKculiy: Mr. Justice 
Grier still beinj? in office, could the commis- 
sion be delivered? Thereupon several friends 
were consulted by the President and they 
advised him that there was no difficulty on 
that fjrouiid : and thereupon the commission 
was sent to Mr. Stanton, to take effect on the 
day when the resignation of Mr. Grier should 
take effect. The President co!itinued to call 
upon him at his iiouse, d;iy after day, during 
Lis last illness, up to the day of his death, and 
followed his remains to tlie grave. 

The circumstances of the appointment of 
Mr. Stanton to tiie place were very remark- 
able. Mr. Justice Grier, an old man full of 
honors and lull of days, had sent in his resig- 
nation or announced ins disposition to retire 
on a certain day. Mr. Stanton was nominated, 
confirmed, commissioned, and ready to take 
his seat. He was then taken sick, died, and 
was buried, all before the 1st day of February, 
and on that day good old Justice Grier re- 
turned, took his place on the bench, and helped 
to decide causes after his successor had been 
appointed, commissioned, and was dead and 
buried. The circumslances show the anxiety 
of the President in this matter to do this kindly 
act to his friend Stanion ; and I tell you, sir, 
what I do know and what no statement could 
shake from my belief for one moment, that 
there is not one word of truth in the whole 
paragiaph which hiis been read from the desk. 
In the i)aragraph quoted from the Senator's 
speech, he represents Air. Stanton as saying 
that although in the campaign of 18G8 he took 
the stump tor the ii-epublican party, he did not 
mention the name of General Grant. 1 iiave 
here the report of a speech made by Mr. Stan- 
ton at SteubenviUe, Ohio, where he had for- 
merly resided, and I read from it, being a 
report in the Daily Chronicle of September 
27. 18G8, as follows: 

"Friends and Fellow-Citizens : The time is rap- 
idly approaching when you will be called upon to 
choose whom you will trust with the chief execu- 
tive power of this nation for the next four years, 
who shall exercise the law-making power as your 
Representatives in Congress during the next con- 
gressional term. You have never made a. choice so 
important to yourselves, to your country, and to 
mankind; for upon it may rest the choice of peace 
or of war, of domestic tranquillity or civil discord, 
freedom or slavery, in short of all the blessings that 
can follow good government, or the evils that bad 
government, can indict upon the human race. At 
the last presidential election the country was in the 
midst of a bloody war, and had for three years been 
struggling in resistance against rebellion. The for- 
tune ol war was so varied that some patriots began 
to feel doubtful as to the result; others were hope- 
less. While on the one hand the rebels strove in 
military power, and, encourugod by syugpathetic 
league with friends in the northern and western 
States, were bold, dcliant, and boasted that they 
only needed for the tinal success that their friends 
in the northern States would carry the presidential 
election, these friends, who had resisted the war at 
every stage, were equally bold and confident in their ! 
ezpectatiou that their hour of triumph was at hand; I 



but these hopes and expectations were doomed to 
ignominious overthrow at the polls by the election 
of Abraham Lincoln, and on the tit-Id of battle by 
our armies under the command of General Grant. 
[Applause.] 

"Overwhelmed by these disasters, political and 
military, the rebels gave up in despair, declared their 
cause the 'lost cause,' and huiubly sued for life, 
liberty, and property, prolessing to bo deeiily grate- 
ful for the generous terms that were ofl'ercd. Of the 
causes that led lothe rebellion and a justification of 
the nation in prosecuting the war, it is needless here 
to dwell. They are still fresh in your recollection. 
The graves of three hundred thousand patriot sol- 
diers slain in battle by the rebels are still green, the 
tears of orrihans, widows, and bereaved parents still 
flow, and the maimed and wounded soldiers around 
us are living memorials of the cruelty of the rebeli 
in their war against the United States Government. 
You will bear in mind, however, that the rebellion 
was occasioned by a thirty years' conspiracy of those 
whom Mr. Johnson boldly termed the slaveholding 
oligarchy of the southern Slates— an oligarchy based 
upon laud monopoly and slave labor. This slave- 
holding aristocracy thirsted to extend their territory 
and political power, and by extending their system 
into the free States to obtiiin a monopoly of the fer- 
tile lands and rich miuerulsof those States, and ulti- 
mately obtain control of the Government, Expe- 
rience has shown that the systems of free labor and 
slave labor are hostile, and cannot exist together, 
so that the foot-hold of slavery is an impassable bar- 
rier to free emigration, and would give to theslave- 
holders not only .a monopoly of lands, products, and 
minerals, but would command all the great channels 
of commerce with the Piicitic and the nations of the 
East, and make them the richest people on the face 
of the globe. This ambitious aim was sternly re- 
sisted in the northern Slates. 

"Mindful of the fortune of war, and fearful of 
delay, the first election of Mr. Lincoln wns deemed 
by the slaveholders a fitting occ:ision for the out- 
break of this rebellion. Ou the d;iy alter the presi- 
dential election the fiag nf the tJnited Stales was 
hauled down and the Palmetto ilag run up in 
Charleston. Convenlions lor secession were called 
in all the slaveholding .States, and very soon ten 
States organized a sti-called confederate govern- 
ment, hostile to the Government of the United 
States, at Montgomery, and transferred its capit,al 
to Richmond. Immediately atterward forts, arsenals, 
magazines, arms, ammunition, shii)-yards, ships of 
war, and the public money were seized and con- 
verted to the purposes of the reuels. The naviga- 
tion of the Ohio and of the Potomac were closed. 
Northern men and northern women were impris- 
oned or banished. The slaveholding Slates' nrmios 
were levied. The forts and troops of the United 
States were besieged, bombarded, and captured, 
and the ca|>ital of the nation at Washington was 
beleaguered and threatened by a hostile torce. 

" In this condition of things the first troops were 
called out in defense of this nation, aud the first war 
loan negotiated; and for every life that has been 
lost, every drop of blood that has been expended, 
every dollar that has been Liid out, every bond or 
note that has been issued, every tax that has been 
collecteil, the slaveholding aristocracy are respons- 
ible. They and their sym)iathizers in the northern 
and western St.afes urged them to hold on, to carry 
on the war until they could obtain control of the 
Government at the next presidential election. The 
measures of Mr. Lincoln to defend the Government 
received the highest sanction. The Governors aud 
Legislatures of loyal States vied with eacli ottier in 
urging enlistments. Ciingrcss at its first session voted 
an army of five hundred thousand men and $500,- 
000,000 to support them. The people flocked trom 
their homes by thousands and thousands to join the 
Army. The soldiers in every camp from the Missis- 
sippi to the Rapidan, trom every corps, brigade, 
regiment, and company, shouted to their brethren 
at hmue to stand by the (jo vernmeut and rally round 
the flag. 

"These measures of defense were not without 
opposition, for about the very time that Sherman and 
his army were forcing their way over the fortifica- 



29 



tisBsanrl the intrenchinents at Atlanta, the conven- 
tion at Cliiciigo deehiriid the war to be a failure and 
demanded the cssatioii of hostilities. This made a 
plain and broad issue, and very soon became the 
great issue of tlie presidential canvass. The result 
was decisive. Twenty-one States, two hundred and 
thirteen electoral votes, over Iwenty-eijjUt million 
people, supported tlie Government. [Applause.] 
The estimate of General Grant upon this result is 
expressed in the following telegram: 

City Point, November 10, 1864—10 30 p. m. 
Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary <>/ War : 

Enough now seems to be known of who is to hold the 
reins of Government tor the ne.xt four years. Con- 
gratulate the President for this double vic'ory. 
[Applause.] The election having passed off quietly, 
with no bloodshed or riot throughout the land, is 
a victory worth more to the country than a battle 
won. Rebeidom and Enroi>e will consider it so. 

U. S. GRANT, Lieutenant General. 

"The people, the army, and the gremt commnnrier 
thui sustained the eiiianeipation proclamntioa which 
had been ianued on the Iv/; of Jaiiwiry, 1863. Abra- 
ham Lincoln hadstruck a blow attheroots of the re- 
bellion by liberating lour million slaves, strength- 
ening our Army and carrying dismay into the hearts 
of the rebels. [Cheers.] The full effect of this great 
measure was not appreciated until near the close of 
the war; but now, when the restoration of slavery 
is a cherished hope of those most hostile to the elec- 
tion of General Grant, it cannot bo too well consid- 
ered. The wealth and power of the rebels wis 
mainly in their slaves; they were the producing 
and laboring class, and without their labor the plant- 
ations were of little value. By the system of en- 
forced, unpaid labor, the rebel master was able to 
sow his land, gather his crops, feed and clothe his 
family, and furnish supplies to the army while the 
whole white population should engage in war. It 
yias thus tliat slavery was soon found to be a mighty 
engine of war, more [Kiwerful than belonged to any 
other people; but it was different in the northern 
States. Every Uiion soldier that left his home to 
join the Army went from the farm, the workshop, or 
the manufactory, and diminished the productive 
industry of the State in his absence. The crops were 
ungathered and rotted upon the ground. The ham- 
mer was silent. The manufactory stood still. He 
had no slave to work to support his family and to do 
his labor for nothing. But the emancipation of 
slaves changed the position of parties. The slaves, 
cut loose from the plantations, flocked within our 
lines; thousands ui)on thousands joined our armies 
and performed military work. The condition of 
the war was therefore in some degree equalized, 
and this great act of Mr. Lincoln carried dis- 
may into the hearts of rebels and strengthened 
the hearts of loyal people. Besides, a large 
and powerful party, who regarded slavery as a 
God-forbiddeu sin and crime, and had been labor- 
ing for years to abolish or limit it, gathered new 
hope and renewed their strength to bring the war to 
a close. Three things mainly contributed to over- 
throw the rebellion : first, the valor of our soldiers 
and the skill of their commanders : second, the pub- 
lic faith and credit, which enabled us to raise money 
to support the Army and provide for its wants; and, 
third, the emancipation of the slaves, which dimin- 
ished their power and gave us strength. 

"The credit and good f^ith of a State is essential 
to its existence, and they constitute the sinews of it? 
power. But no Government can exist without credit 
sufficient to meet extraordinary emergencies; for no 
Government can in these times keep mofley in its 
treasury suffi«ient to carry on a foreign or domestic 
war, and construct a great national work like the 
Pacific railroad, or meet many of the exigencies 
that hapjien in the life of a nation. Prance, Russia, 
Austria, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and the Papal 
States, and all the great Powers of the world, are 
compelled to rely upon their credit to meet great 
emergencies. This was eminently the case with the 
United States; for wheia the rebellion broke out the 
Treasury was empty, its arms and magazines had 
been plundered, and there were no means to carry 
on the war. By the effort of our enemies credit 



abread was cut off, so that the Government must fall 
at the firststroke of rebellion or rely upon the faith 
of its ijeople and its domestic credit. Tlie Govern- 
ment belonged to the people, and they were equal 
to the emergency. 

"By the purchase of bonds and current notes 
enough money w.is raiseil to meet the exigencies of 
the war, the Treasury was filled, and there was 
little necessity in the Treasury from the beginning 
to the end of the war, and then only for short peri- 
ods, until a fresh appeal could be made, and thus it 
happened that the public faith and the public credit 
became a corner-stone of the St:ite, and contributed 
largely to the salvation of the Government. When 
the war wa.s over new and importantduties devolved 
upon theGoverninent ; tUe Army had to be paid, the 
pensions provided, and protectif>n and education 
given to the enfranchised slaves, the rights of citizens 
in all the rebel States secured, and the Federal guar- 
antee of a republican form of government carried 
into execution. Immediately upon the meeting of 
Congress it devoted itself assiduously to this work — 
loans were issued, money raised, the Army paid as 
it was disbanded, while the widows and disabled sol- 
diers were liberally pensioned. Tbe l^Veedmeu'ij 
Bureau was organized lor tbe protection of the liber- 
ated slaves, the civil rights bll was passed to pro- 
tect citizens in the loyal States, and measures 
adopted to give peace, tranquillity, and republican 
government in all the Stales whose governments had 
been cast off by the rebellion. 

" Some of these measures have been carried out, 
others, for reasons needless to discuss now, still 
remain an unexecuted dead letter, and they will so 
remain until General Grant shall bo elected Presi- 
dontofthe United States. [Great applause.] Grant, 
then, stands this day before us the foremost military 
comtnander in the world, with peace for his watch- 
word. [Applause.] Why should he not be elected? 
Wha' reason has any lover of country for not voting 
for him? By his side stands Schuyler Colfax, who, 
by his own energy, good character, and industry, 
advanced troio the printing-office to the Speaker's 
chair, and for three successive terms has titled that 
high office with honor and distinction, llonestaud 
upright men have been nominated foryour Repre- 
sentatives in Congress, pledged to stand by Grant 
and the country. Why, then, again I ask, should 
he and they not receive your support? The history 
of Grant is known to you and to the world. Edu- 
cated at West Point, he served with distinction 
through the Mexican war, and when it was ended, 
unwilling to be a drone, resigned his commissioa 
and engaged in the pursuits of civil life. Leaving 
his peaceful pursuits at the commencement of the 
reoehion, he joined the Army, and soon advanced 
to the rank of major general, commanding an army. 
After varied and important services he moved upon 
the enemy's works at Donelson, and compelled their 
commander, Buckner, to surrender with eighteen 
thousand prisoners of war. Soon after he grappled 
with Beauregard on the field of Shiloh and drove 
him and his routed army from the field. Resolved 
to open the navigation of the Mississippi river, he 
ran its batteries, fought and defeated General 
Johnston, chased the rebel General Pemberton into 
Viclisburg, and forced him to surrender with thirty 
thousand prisoners of war. [Applause.] Advanced 
to command all the armies of the West, he fought 
and defeated Bragg at Chattanooga, shattered his 
army, and delivered that vast territory from the 
hands of the rebels. [A()plause.] Advanced still 
higher as Lieutenant General, he changed his 
headquarters to the Potomac, forty days' marching 
and fighting through the Wilderness drove Lee and 
his army into llicLimond. Compelled to evacuate, 
Lee was chased to Appomattox Court-House, aad 
forced to surrender himself and his arms and men 
as prisoners of war, which practically brought the 
rebellion to an end. [Applause.] And now I ask 
what reason has any man to vote against General 
Grant? Hm cai^aiity and integrity for civil admin- 
istration ivere equally manifeat in the vast territory in 
which he operated. If any man among you would 
hide from the boy tbe musket and knapsack that 
his father carried at Donelson. at Vicksburg, upon 
Lookout mountain, throughout the Wilderness, be- 



30 



fore Richmond, at Five Forks, at AppomatoxCourt- 
House, and shouldering proudly inarched with two 
hundred thousand of his fell w-soldiers through the 
streets of Washington and around the Capitol and 
Executive Mansion that he defended with his life 
for years in the long march, the wearisome siege, 
and the storm of battle, let such man vote against 
General Grant. [Api)lause.] If there is any man 
among you who would blot from the page of 
our history the story of these great achievements, 
let him draw black lines arounii them and write 
across their face, " Have no share in these great 
deeds, for I vote against Grant." [Applause.] 
Is there any man among you that would compel 
the armies of the Potomac, of 'he James, of the 
Ohio, of the Cumberland, of the Tennessee, and of 
the Gulf, to bo again gathered at the tap of the 
drum and surrendered as prisoners of war to Lee and 
Johnston, Beauregard and Forrest, and Preston, )et 
him vote against General Grant. [Applause.] If 
there is any man .among you who has forgotten that 
bright summer Sabbath day the little Monitor, as 
she steamed out against the new sea monster, the 
Merrimac, and before noon drove her, shattered and 
crippled, to port; if there is any man who would 
have rejoiced to behold acannon ball shatter Farra- 
But, as lashed to his m^st hodrove through the rebel 
fleet and pushed them to pieces, let that man vote 
against Grant. If any man would have Worden, and 
Farragut, and Winslow, and all our great admirals 
haul down the star-spangled banner, never again 
to brave the battle and the breeze; if ho would see 
them slink in shame from their own quarter-decks, 
»nd give up their shii)S to Maury, and Buchanan, 
and Semmes, and Motfat, while the confederate bars, 
emblems of slavery, tiaunt on every sea, in every 
State, let him vote against Grant. Vote early and 
vote often; for if Grant be elected, this globe shall 
disappear from the firmament before the banner 
of the United States shall suffer tarnish or 
shame on the land nor on the deep. [Applause.] 
If there is any man among you that would 
reverse the order of history ; who would bring upon 
you a shame and a reproach never before known 
among the nations of the e;irth; who would have 
the commander of the United States armies deliver 
up his sword and humbly bi>w before the rebel com- 
mander — let that, man vote against Grant, but never 
again call himself an Americ.iii citixeo. [Applause.] 
If there is any man wliose eyeballs wonlit not burn 
to behold Lee upon the portico of the Capitol, with 
Beauregard, Preston, and Forrest at his side, with a 
confederate army around him, and, as the Govern- 
ment is transferred to them, listen to the rebel yell 
as it sounds on the field of battle and in the New 
York convention, [loud cheers.] let such a man vote 
against Grant and go to Washington on the fth of 
March. [Applause.] Why, then, I repeat, should 
any lover of his country vote against Grant, Col- 
fax, and the Republican members of Congress ? 

■'A convention has been held in New York and put 
in nomination opposition candidates — iloratio Sey- 
mour and F"rank P. Blair. Seymour professes that 
he is an unwilling candidate caught up by a whirl- 
wind. [Laughter and cheers.] Blair was put in 
nomination by Preston, of Kentucky, who fought 
for years against his country, and the nomination 
wa.s seconded by Forrest, of Fort Pillow. That nom- 
ination was received with acclamation, and the 
opposing candidates thus stand before you for your 
choice. The v7atchword of Grant, as I have said, is 
peace. Now, what is the watchword of the New 
York convention? A few days before the meeting 
of that convention, Frank Blair, in a manifesto to 
his friend Brodhead, declared the platform on 
which he was willing to stand. It was plain, direct, 
aud the acclamation vpith which it was received by 
the New York convention proves it to be the real 
platform and settled purpose of those who support 
the convention and are voting against Grant The 
substance is: first, that the President shall declare 
all the reconstruction laws of Congress null and 
void; second, that he shall compel the Army to 
undo what has been done; third, that the white 
population of the rebel States shall be sutt'ered 
to organize their own govornments; fourth, that the 
talk about greenbacks and bonds and gold aud the i 



public credit and the public debt is idle talk; fifti 
that the President must trample in the dust th 
reconstruction laws passed by Congress. 

" This platform admits and designs to admit n 
doubt or equivocation. And what is the true mear 
ing and result? If the reconstruction acts of Ci)n 
gresa may be declared by the President null an 
void, he then becomes a dictator, with the \a.v 
making power in his hands alone. If he may con: 
pel the military power to undo what has been don 
under and by virtue of acts of Congress, he beoonK 
a military dictator, and all form and semblance ( 
republican government is lost. If the white popi 
lation of the rebel States are to reorganize their ow 
governmen's without reference to the reconstructin 
acts of Congress, then it is plain to be seen that tL 
first act will be the restoration of slavery — the rei 
toration to the rebel power of the engine with whic 
it carried on the W;ir, the perpetual power an 
domination of the aristocracy of the slave-holdic 
States — the slave oligarchy — forever in the South. 

"After discussing the financial question and di 
nouncing repudiation, he paid a glowing tribute i 
praise to the bravery of our Army and Navj 
describing the different marches, battles, naval cou 
bats, and victories of the war. lie conrtuded h 
speech toith an eloquent appeal to all loyal people, 
all who have their country at heart, to work atxidi 
ountu, to work with ardor, and by the election of Gra 
they would give liberty, contentment, and happiness 
the country forever." 

It will thus be seen that the Senator frot 
Massachaselts, in the paragrapli before quote 
from his speech, represents .Mr. Stanton as fa 
sifying on his deatli bed the truth as itappeare 
frotn his previously reported speeches. 

In a speech delivered at Philadelphia, jii: 
before tlie eleciion ot" General Grant, M 
Stanton said : 

"' Ladies and (gentlemen, Fellmo-citizens of Philn 
delphia: This mighty concourse, the largest that iii 
eyes ever beheld, is significant of two things : firs 
it is a judgment in favor of Ulysses S. Grant." 
* * * ■■ Uponthe election nextTuesday, tl 
3J of November, I behold the rock of our nationi 
safety; and upon the triumph ot the banner whie 
is held in the hands of Ulysses S. (Jrant I beliol 
the victory of the principles of freedom and of jui 
government, now, aud in all time." * * * : 

" Why then, tellow-citizcns, have you this nigl 
passed judgment in favor of Ulysses S. Grant an 
against Horatio Seymour? The first reason is froi 
the persons who put them in nomination before th 
people, and who are now urging them forward n 
candidates for the Presidency of the United State 
They met in New York a short time ago; and wli 
were they? They were red-handed rebels, prisot 
ers of war to the United Slates, they and their assi 
ciates. These are tlie men who i>ut in nominatio 
Horatio Seymour. Who put in nomination Ulysst 
S.Grant? The great Republican party that bor 
this nation triumphantly through the war, unde 
the Divine blessing, amid the trials and dangei 
and all the vicissitudes of the great war that w 
have just passed through. lU; w;is nominated b 
the great Ptepublican p.irty. The first reason, thei 
why we should prefer Grant on next Tuesday t 
Seymour is to be found in the organization and pei 
sons who placed them in nomination, and in thos 
whom they represent. Grant represents the loy; 
heart of 'America; Seymour is a traveling agent o 
Wade Hampton and Forrest. 

" Another reason for yourjudgment is to bo foun 
in the merits of the persons themselves. In Grat 
we behold the leader of our armies in the path c 
victory. [Applause.] In Grant we behold the gre: 
General who, under divine Providence, led oi 
armies, supported as they were by some of thet 
who are here before you to-night. Tho same gallar 
Genenil who, assisted by your present Governo 
John W. Geary, antl aided by your late Governo 
Andrew G. Ciirtin, here at home, in the executiv 
council and State administration, led you onwai 



31 



from the Missiseippi to the Potomac eastward, until 
no rebel flag poisoned the gale on this continent. 

"These, then, are reasons which fully justify the 
choice which you will make next Tuesday : but these 
reasons are denied by others, and chiefly by the 
agent, the representative of Forrest and of Hamp- 
ton, who has recently been traversingthis continent 
for one thousand miles, giving reasons why Grant 
should not be elected, and vyhy the banner of the 
Union, dishonored and inglorious, should be in- 
trusted to his hands." ***** 

" The mistakes mentioned are, Seymour says, ' the 
mistakes of the Kepublicau party.' What, then, 
has General Grant got to do with them ? [Cheers 
for Grant.] While Congress may have made mis- 
takes, if you please, without number — day by day 
made mistakes — Grant was before the enemy's face 
fighting him; he was taking no surrender, except 
that it was ' unconditional!' [Applause.] No terms 
left his lips but 'unconditional surrender ' of the 
enemy of his country." ***** 

" Upon the 5th day of Ju'y, 1863, notwithstanding 
the conduct of Horatio Seymour, the sun of our 
country's glory burst forth in splendor through the 
dark cloud of rebellion that had for some years over- 
shadowed it, and the baleful exhalations of treason 
were scattered. Do your duty next Tuesday, and 
the sun of our political glory will shine as brightly 
and with as great a luster as it shone on the day of 
the 4th of July at Vicksburg and at Gettysburg. 
[Applause.] Vote against Grant, and the darkness 
and gloom that will settle over this country liKe the 
pall of midnight will settle deeper and deeper over 
the land, over its prosperity, over all the elements of 
national power, over all the elements of national 
honor, overall tho elements of national strength, 
and the greatest calamity that ever befel a people 
■will happen. May divine Providence avert that 
catastrophe." 

On the same night, Mr. Stanton was sere- 



naded at the Union League, and spoke as fol- 
lows : 

" Fellow- (Viixcns: General Grant never looked 
upon an army of tho enemy of his country but to 
conquer it. [Applause.] He neversat down before a 
rebel strongholil to besiege it, but it fell before him. 
Tho samo arm that supported him at tho head of his 
Army, and the gallant troops that followed him will 
continue to uphold and sutiport him, because he 
represents the great American heart; and the tri- 
umphs that have been won by the physical armies, 
will be more than repiiid, thrice repaid, by the 
glorious victory of next Tuesday." 

It is a fortunate thing that the dead Secre- 
tary has left it out of the power of the living 
Senator to btlie him. 

Further quotations might be made from 
speeches of Mr, Stanton in the campaign 
which resulted in General Grant's election, to 
show that Mr. Stanton not only referred to 
General Grant by name, but that he accom- 
panied the mention of that name with most 
flattering commendation. But the quotations 
I have made are sulfieient to show either that 
Mr. Stanton on his death-bed uttered a false- 
hood to the Senator from Massachusetts, a 
falsehood wiiich he must have known to be sus- 
ceptible of easy contradiction by reference to 
the reports of his speeches during that cam- 
paign, or that the Senator from Massachu- 
setts deliberately falsihed Mr. Stanton ; and I 
am content that the American people shall 
judge between them. 



LB S 12 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

||ljf!!JL'll|||i!U|lllil|ii|i|ri||iiii 



013 786 571 3% 



I.J.. « «J« 



^:« «i. 



i 1 t '^ 

J. -A Am :4 M'i" 

.:t .t « ■1 i «■* ■ 









^■^: M .«; 1, «i fi « * « « ■«; 

4 '^ 1.,* ,t € » f- 4 < '4 ■«! "i 

t f ^t, :» '«: ■# ,i ^' « ■« 5* li 

^'^J*-.J^j^.*. *: % .fi »>. i It »: i % i M 

•' * f »: 4 % 4 # "* '»; 
, . . , , ., .i «: i » # *'' •■' ■■' ■■■' 



t ■ ,t 



* 'I .* 



I '1 * f ■(*■;: 
i * I < - 

'-■ .{ I ,| I"* 

'v^;«.« ,:^ ,<^ ■« ., .-,, 

^\< < .f ,t-,f # * « 

•■ % f -Hi .* * 4 ■-' ■ 

« i t ," '•' 






^•i\l'''i' 



* i ii 'it '* 



* * 



a"a! " 



A M M A 






6 t f' 






;* t ""<" 



'4 'm 



k ■*> t « I 






4^ H. % H 

■■"' M. i ." 



;■'# 'g i ■# ''^tj 'i ^iii'4 
t f 4 f ■«' 4 i-4 -I; 

t: i .% t € t t 'i i 



=5'v ^) % "». 



t ■# € 



0, ' f i 



i Us. 



€ .4 



#■ J/'l -^ 



